PRIVATE BUSINESS

Manchester City Council Bill [ L ords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 21st January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ L ords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 21st January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House on 22nd January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House on 22nd January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House on 22nd January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House on 22nd January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow .

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Heathrow

John Barrett: What recent representations he has received on the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow.

Geoff Hoon: The Department for Transport received almost 70,000 responses to the "Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport" consultation, which closed on 27 February this year. An equalities impact assessment consultation has since been undertaken to consider how development at Heathrow might affect equality priority groups. Responses showed a wide range of views on the proposals, and we are still considering the position. We have made it clear that the expansion will go ahead only if air quality, noise and public transport commitments are satisfied.

John Barrett: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will know that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the third runway and to support a high-speed rail link. Does he accept that many of the hundreds of daily short-haul flights that go to Heathrow from constituencies such as mine could be replaced by a north-south high-speed rail link, which would be good for the environment, good for the economy and would remove any need for a third runway?

Geoff Hoon: As I have made clear, this is not an alternative—we are not posing expansion at Heathrow as an alternative to high-speed links. It may well be that, on economic grounds, both are required. That is why I have taken forward urgently work in the Department for Transport to look precisely at how we can develop new capacity, new rail links and, if necessary, high-speed rail links. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have regard to the views of the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, who clearly represents the views of Scottish businesses. He said:
	"Heathrow's international route network is a national asset that is therefore every bit as important to Scotland's future as it is to London's."

Martin Salter: How does the Secretary of State answer the representations made by Lord Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency, this week that the construction of a third runway at Heathrow would make it impossible to meet legally binding targets on air pollution?

Geoff Hoon: The Environment Agency made a submission to the consultation. That, of course, will be taken fully into account alongside the other submissions that were made during the relevant period.

John Randall: Will the Secretary of State be able to give us a definite idea that the decision will be announced before Christmas? Once that decision is made, will we be able to vote on it in the House?

Geoff Hoon: It is certainly my intention that the decision should be announced before the Christmas recess.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Cabinet Minister best qualified to judge whether the third runway will reach air quality and noise standards is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and will he take his opinions particularly into account?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Government in this country operate on the basis of collective Cabinet responsibility, and I am sure that all my colleagues will express their views in their usual fashion.

Justine Greening: The Secretary of State will be aware of the controversy surrounding the so-called fantasy plane that has been used in the modelling essentially to force-fit the environmental tests and make them met? From which aircraft manufacturers and jet engine turbine manufacturers has he had confirmation that that plane will ever be in existence?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, I am aware of the controversy. I know that the hon. Lady has researched these matters assiduously, so she will be aware that the assumptions made about that particular aircraft were not helpful in relation to any argument about noise or air quality. It was not a particularly noisy aircraft.

Hugh Bayley: Every single plane that flies from London to north America flies directly over the north of England. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if they landed, say, at Manchester, they would save half an hour of flying time, 400 miles of fuel on a round-trip and, if a north-south fast railway were built, passengers could be in London as quickly as if they had landed at Heathrow and had to fight their way in from the suburbs of London? Is it not time to think about that seriously as an alternative to a third runway at Heathrow?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The last time I looked, I was the Secretary of State for Transport in the Government, not the chief executive of British Airways.

Theresa Villiers: How many children will have their education affected by a deteriorating noise environment if the Government press ahead with their plans for a third runway and mixed mode at Heathrow?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Lady knows full well that a number of schools are in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow. Action has been taken to provide noise insulation at those schools. Clearly, in the event of there being any decision to expand Heathrow, further action would have to be taken to ensure that those schoolchildren were able to attend and participate in lessons in the way that they do already.

Theresa Villiers: According to the local authorities affected, 114 schools and around 100,000 children will suffer from serious noise problems if a third runway goes ahead. Meanwhile, around the world, air traffic is falling, Stelios is telling the easyJet board that the days of exponential passenger growth have gone, and yesterday's pre-Budget report predicted a fall in demand for aviation. Is it not time that the Secretary of State revised down his aviation growth forecasts and scrapped his plans for a third runway and mixed mode at Heathrow?

Geoff Hoon: Unfortunately, the statistics that the hon. Lady quotes are not additional to any decision to build an extra runway. She simply gives the number of children currently affected. I anticipated that in the answer that I gave a few moments ago. She needs to ensure, when she is putting forward this case, that she has her statistics right and that she deploys them accurately as far as the House is concerned, so that we can have a proper debate about these matters. As I made clear at the outset, no decision has been taken on the matter. Any decision that is taken, will be taken in the light of air quality, noise and public transport arrangements.

Public Bus Services

Mary Creagh: What estimate he has made of the number of people using public bus services in 2006-07; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Clark: Just under 4.5 billion bus journeys were made across England in 2006-07. There was a further increase of 600,000 journeys in 2007-08. Overall, local bus use has increased by over 17 per cent. since 1997. This achievement is due in part to the success of the London bus network, the hard work of operators and local authorities, and the introduction, of course, of increasingly generous concessionary travel by this Government.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The number of people using buses in Wakefield went up in one year by 30 per cent. following the introduction of the free pensioners pass, which made some dodgy routes in and out of Denby Dale and Kirkburton much more viable, and I thank him for that. Will he now look at introducing concessionary fares nationwide for young people—the 16 to 18-year-olds—whom we want to be able to benefit from free transport, particularly in the Wakefield district, where specialist schools are sometimes located 10 or 15 miles away from where a young person might live?

Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the concessionary fares that were introduced from April of this year. She is absolutely right: more than 11 million benefit from that concession for the over-60s and for those with disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend and the work of the Youth Parliament very much push for young people to have access to free transport. I recognise the arguments, which are about them being socially excluded, but I do not believe that they fall within the same remit as the concessions that we have already introduced. Our assessment is that concessionary fares for all five to 19-year-olds would cost approximately £1.4 billion.

Michael Jack: Bus ridership in the borough of Fylde has increased very substantially as a result of the concessionary fares scheme, but the local authority, over and above the additional funding provided by the Government, will this year lose some £360,000, whereas the borough of Pendle will gain £385,000. Can I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will re-examine the formula used to allocate the national budget for the scheme, to make certain that boroughs such as Fylde do not lose out?

Paul Clark: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the Government's decision to introduce nationwide concessionary free travel for 11 million people. I recognise the issues that he raises. However, we spend approximately £1 billion on concessionary fares, mainly through the rate support grant mechanism, provided through local authorities. When we introduced the new nationwide scheme in April, we added an extra £212 million, which will rise to £223 million over the next two years, to compensate local authorities for that delivery. Invariably, all local authorities received on average a 30 per cent. increase in the allocation of moneys for the concessionary schemes. However, we always keep these matters under review.

Paul Truswell: Is not the problem that the figure for bus patronage is skewed by an enormous increase of use in London, whereas in most parts of the country, such as my constituency, the picture is one of services being reduced to the most profitable routes and to routes that are subsidised with ever-increasing and hefty subsidies from the taxpayer? Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent report by the Centre for Cites, which demonstrates what a huge problem deregulation has been in cities? How confident is he that the measures contained in the new Local Transport Bill will address that?

Paul Clark: My hon. Friend raises some important points. Although the increase is principally due to success in London and the concessionary fare scheme, there have been other clear increases. Indeed, hon. Members have already referred to some in their constituencies: in Brighton, Nottingham, Oxford and York, for example, bus patronage has increased. I sincerely believe that the Local Transport Bill, which recently completed its parliamentary stages, will allow local authorities to decide what best suits their areas, and it is up to local leaders to use the Bill's toolkit to make a difference for their local people.

David Curry: Will the Minister recognise that the review that he has just promised needs to be carried out with the greatest possible urgency? The scheme whereby elderly people and disabled people will have three bus passes threatens to shoot a huge hole in the budget of dozens of local authorities throughout England. Harrogate's local authority, which serves my constituency, faces a deficit, over and above the grant, of between £1.3 million and £1.6 million, depending on the volume of traffic this winter, and York has a multiple of that already. Will the Minister recognise that the distribution of funds bears no relationship whatever—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not make a speech.

Paul Clark: Let me make it clear that the additional funding that was made available as of April was distributed on the basis of the discussions that were held with, and the representations that were received from, more than 200 local authorities. Destinations, major shopping areas and areas with a high number of retired people were taken into account in the allocations. Indeed, we looked at the budgets that local authorities had allowed for 2006-07, and that is why I am confident that, on average, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in funding, out of the extra £212 million. We keep the matter under review, but we do not necessarily intend to revisit the whole operation, other than the administrative side.

Mark Todd: Those with enduring mental health problems are not entitled to participation in the concessionary fare scheme, but they would undoubtedly use buses more if they were. Will the Minister reconsider the current classification of those entitlements?

Paul Clark: My hon. Friend will know that the current scheme covers all those people over 60 years old, and approximately eight groups of people with disabilities. I recently attended a lobby by Sense on the issues of mental health and companions for people with disabilities. There are no current plans to extend those concessions, but, like all these things, we keep the matter under review.

Rail Network

David Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the capacity of the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Bone: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the capacity of the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: The White Paper on rail set out the Government's commitment to increasing rail capacity by 2014, backed by investment of some £10 billion. This includes the procurement of an additional 1,300 carriages for operation right across the network; 423 vehicles have already been ordered; and yesterday, we announced proposals to procure a further 200, which will benefit passengers in the Thames valley, around Bristol and on longer distance regional services in central northern England.

David Jones: Last week, in evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Minister of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, admitted that the Department's own forecasting models had failed to predict the significant increase in rail passenger growth. What steps are the Department taking to ensure that those models are improved, and that more accurate and reliable statistics are provided?

Geoff Hoon: We simply did not anticipate the remarkable success of the funding that Labour Governments have put into the railways since 1997. Had we based things on the likely forecast when the Conservatives were in power, we would be managing a very small rail network today. In a sense, I take the hon. Gentleman's question as a tribute to the success of Labour's policy on rail. Obviously, we want that success to continue, and that is why we are putting in the extra investment.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State support the "In the can" campaign, through which rail users are encouraged to send a tin of sardines to the chief executive of East Midlands Trains because of the gross overcrowding? Or does he think that this tin of sardines would be better presented to him as Secretary of State, for his inaction and complacency?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to Conservative Members for thinking about my health and welfare and ensuring that I eat oily fish. Having already received a tin of sardines from one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I suggest that rather than sending his to me, he sends it to an appropriate charity in his constituency.

Louise Ellman: What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to bring forward new investment in rail to meet the current economic situation?

Geoff Hoon: As I have already said to the House, some £15 billion is set out to improve our rail network, and it will concentrate particularly on capacity. We want to ensure that trains are appropriate and that platforms are of the appropriate length. I have established a group under the leadership of my noble Friend Lord Adonis to consider the question of new lines, electrification and high-speed lines for where they are necessary. A tremendous amount of work is under way at the Department for Transport to ensure that we have the capacity on our rail network to meet likely levels of demand.

Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will have heard it said that the Norwich to London line is second class, going on third class. To top it all, we now hear that there are 314 job losses to be determined—yes or no?—by Christmas. Secondly, the famous restaurant cars—often supported by many of our colleagues and others—are to be taken away. How is that compatible with quality service and with a franchise that says that there should be an ongoing kitchen in every train? How can there be a kitchen without a restaurant attached?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in standing up for the interests of his constituents in Norwich, particularly in relation to transport and communication links between Norwich and London. I would be delighted to see him and any other Norwich Member with a particular interest in the restaurant facilities whenever that can be arranged.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will know that it has been estimated that regulated and unregulated rail fares will rise by 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. What assurance can he give hard-working commuters that the issue will not continue to affect them adversely?

Geoff Hoon: I recently met representatives of the Association of Train Operating Companies, and I set out to them that, in making any increases, it was important to take account of the current economic circumstances and the impact on those who regularly commute by rail—not least, those with season tickets. What is important is that some 60 per cent. of all rail fares are regulated and that since 1997 those regulated fares have remained within the overall rate of inflation. That is not to say, however, that we do not take seriously the impact on other fares; I hope that train operating companies will take that into account when setting future fare increases.

Gisela Stuart: I welcome the Government's previous commitment to the development of Birmingham New Street station, and I read with interest about the transport investment announced yesterday. However, if money comes forward in future, may I ask the Secretary of State not to overlook the region of the west midlands, and Birmingham in particular? It is in the heart of England and part of our manufacturing base, and we need investment desperately.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was at Birmingham New Street yesterday; the investment to be made there will transform the station and make it central to the investment that we are putting in right across the rail network. I hear what she says about the west midlands, which is an important network hub for the United Kingdom. I certainly look to seeing new investment there in the future.

Adam Price: Why has the decision been made not to proceed with the upgrading of the Stroud valley line, which is used to re-route services from south Wales to London when the Severn tunnel is closed? Why should passengers have to wait an extra hour to complete their journey at weekends for the want of a £32 million investment?

Geoff Hoon: I am aware of that proposal. Several criteria have to be satisfied. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the schemes to which he refers in general terms are looked at on a regular basis and kept under review.

Eric Martlew: You, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that for over a decade I have been asking questions about the upgrade of the west coast main line, which, thanks to the generosity of this Government, is almost complete. However, even when it is completed, there will still be a capacity problem in the near future. What plans does the Secretary of State have to build a high-speed line going from London to Scotland on the west coast?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the Government for spending some £8.8 billion on improvements to the west coast main line. That has meant extra capacity and improvements in journey times right up the line and on either side of it, and it has been a considerable success. I recognise, however, that it is important that we maintain capacity levels and see where there are capacity constraints on the network. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Adonis will take my hon. Friend's submissions into consideration when looking at possible routes for future high-speed rail links. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is more one route to Scotland.

Norman Baker: The Secretary of State's Department's projections for future passenger numbers demonstrate that they will be well in excess of the capacity that the Department has planned. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that part of the strategy is to price people off the railways, which is why over the past few years, since 1997, prices have risen 6 per cent. above inflation and only this week we saw 6 per cent. and 11 per cent. increases in regulated and unregulated fares. Why does not he introduce a freeze on rail ticket prices for a year in the same way that the Chancellor has introduced, three times since 1997, freezes on fuel duty to help motorists. Why should motorists be helped and not train passengers?

Geoff Hoon: I accept neither the hon. Gentleman's premise nor his conclusion. He is wrong on both counts. The assessments of capacity that have been made are in keeping with the extra capacity that the Government will make available in terms of our future plans for the rail network. As I have indicated in response to previous questions, it is important that we not only go on looking to improve capacity—not only at the various pinch-points in the network where there is clearly congestion and overcrowding—but consider the longer-term plans for new capacity, new lines, electrification and high-speed links. I have set that out very clearly to the House and I will go on doing so, at least until the hon. Gentleman starts listening.

Ken Purchase: I make no apologies for referring to the west coast main line again, as it is a very important artery for Great Britain. The question of infrastructure, particularly the length of platforms, is troubling if we are to have these new locomotives working. I refer especially, again without apologies, to Wolverhampton, where the private developer leading the work has now stopped because of, he says, the lack of the possibility of growing the station in the present economic circumstances. Given the Chancellor's statement yesterday, will my right hon. Friend ensure that these questions of capacity in relation to station infrastructure are considered carefully and properly for Birmingham and the whole west coast main line, but with a special plea for Wolverhampton?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue about his constituency. I said earlier that in looking at capacity constraints, not only the length of trains but the length of platforms is crucial to improving capacity and the ability of our trains to provide a proper service to his constituents and others in the west midlands. I will certainly consider the case of Wolverhampton with a degree of urgency.

Stephen Hammond: The Secretary of State will want to acknowledge that since privatisation rail patronage has increased by 40 per cent. However, in contrast to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), recent independent research from the Institution of Civil Engineers and the university of Southampton clearly indicates that improvements in capacity have not kept pace with that increase in patronage. Following last week's unregulated fare increases of up to 11 per cent., many people using the railways believe that the Government's only strategy for dealing with capacity is to price them off them. Does the Minister not realise that overcrowding plus huge increases in unregulated fares does not represent value for money for the travelling public?

Geoff Hoon: I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. Interestingly, when someone—perhaps it was the hon. Gentleman—was asked by  The Times on Friday or Saturday what the Conservative party's view was on these fare increases, no answer came. No answer was given on what the Conservative party would do if faced with a similar situation. Unfortunately, that is all too typical of the Conservative party's approach to the present grave economic circumstances faced by this country and others.

Geraldine Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware—and he probably is not—that one of the trains on the morning peak-time Morecambe to Lancaster commuter service has been taken off because of capacity problems with the west coast main line? We welcome the improvements that the Government have made to the line, which have made a difference, but there are still capacity issues for smaller lines crossing the main line. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss that matter?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right: I was not aware of that consequence of improving capacity on the west coast main line. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the issues affecting her constituents.

South London Line

Simon Hughes: What his Department's policy is on the future of the south London line; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is planned that the south London line service will be diverted away from London Bridge toward Bellingham to maintain connections into Victoria from stations such as Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill.

Simon Hughes: Are Ministers aware that the travelling public who use the railways from Denmark Hill, the two Peckham stations and South Bermondsey think that they and the Government have been hoodwinked? Would Ministers look at the plans of Network Rail and Thameslink, which, as far as we can remember, said nothing about the end of the south London loop line from London Bridge to Victoria? That line is used by many commuters in a part of London that is fairly poorly served as far as railways are concerned.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am happy to look at the documentation to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention. He will be aware that Thameslink modernisation is attracting £5.5 billion of funding for one of the most overcrowded routes in the UK. It will be an important addition to the capital's transport system, given that it is the only overground railway through the centre of London. By 2015, the trains will be twice as long, and will be travelling much more frequently. I will, however, look at the information that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider.

Andrew Pelling: Also on the south London line is Crystal Palace station. There has been an announcement from city hall in the past few weeks that the extension of the Croydon tram link to Crystal Palace will no longer be worked on. There was £9.9 million in the budget for the scheme, but city hall has said that it will not progress with it unless the Government commit to funding the whole scheme beyond 2010. If we were to ask the Government for the money, would that be possible?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is expressing regret at the election of Mayor Johnson, and at the dropping of many of the priority plans of Mayor Livingstone. The Department for Transport has allocated a fairly generous settlement to Transport for London of £40 billion over the next 10 years. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be disappointed at Mayor Johnson's decisions, as are many people across London, but he has the money to prioritise the elements of transport that he thinks are appropriate, and perhaps he will take notice of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Cycling

Natascha Engel: What measures he is taking to encourage more people to cycle.

Paul Clark: Cycling has an important role to play in people's transport choices. The Government have been supporting local authorities financially, by issuing guidance and advice, and by providing ideas and inspiration. All that work is supported by a £140 million programme developed by our advisers, Cycling England.

Natascha Engel: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Everybody knows the health and environmental benefits of cycling, but it is important that we inspire even more young people to take up cycling in the first place. What is his Department doing to train more very young children to take up cycling, and what is it doing about building more cycle paths directly to schools?

Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is well known that she is a keen cyclist who is often seen ready for the off, in her gear, at the last vote. Her question is spot on about the need for us to take as many steps as possible to encourage young people and adults to cycle. We have various plans, such as our work with Cycling England to train 500,000 young people between now and 2012 to attain level 2 at cycling, and travel-to-school plans are equally important to encourage cycling and walking.

George Young: But is there not a role for Ministers in the Department to play by leading by example?

Paul Clark: I am delighted to inform the right hon. Gentleman that both my parliamentary colleagues sitting on the Front Bench today cycle, and I am sure that that is more than enough.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give a welcome to the proposal from Spokes, the Lothian cycle campaign, of which I am happy to declare myself a member, for a £20 million fund for cycle projects in Scotland? Under the previous Administration, Scotland was ahead of England, but under the Scottish National party, spending on cycling is falling behind. When he next meets his colleagues in the Scottish Executive, will my hon. Friend urge them to ensure that Scotland does not fall behind the rest of the UK in encouraging cycling as an important way of improving health and supporting the environment?

Paul Clark: I would always take the opportunity to encourage anyone making decisions about transport, including colleagues in Scotland, to develop all possible modes. However, I might add that if my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser), the chairman of the all-party cycling group, has his way, he will have me on a bicycle very shortly.

Robert Goodwill: As a cyclist, may I encourage the Minister to join his two colleagues and get into the saddle himself? Will he join me in congratulating the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who is rolling out a Paris-style rent-a-bike scheme in the capital? Does the Minister also agree that we will persuade people to use their bicycles for urban journeys only if we have better secure parking in town centres and, in particular, at railway stations?

Paul Clark: I would support any development of cycling and giving people those choices, but I am equally aware that there has been some adjustment in the budget for cycle lanes and so on. However, it is obviously for the Mayor to make those choices under the devolved powers. Equally, I am aware that having the confidence to cycle, whether to school or for leisure, is a particular concern for parents and young people. That is why we have invested money in ensuring the safety and training of youngsters.

Topical Questions

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Geoff Hoon: Today we are announcing more than £1 billion in transport spending. This includes £700 million of funding, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday would be brought forward to help stimulate the economy, together with £300 million of new Government funding to help speed up the delivery of links to some of the United Kingdom's most important international gateways.
	The £700 million will help to advance the Government's plans to increase capacity on the motorways and other key roads, and to accelerate the delivery of improvements to rail services. The funding that has been brought forward and the schemes that can benefit include: £174 million to dual the A46 between Newark and Widmerpool; £300 million for 200 train carriages to relieve congestion on the Great Western, Northern and TransPennine rail franchises; and £300 million to introduce more managed motorway schemes to make best use of our existing motorway capacity.
	In addition, £300 million of new Government funding will speed up the delivery of other key schemes, including: £30 million for improvements to the A180-A160 junction to improve access to Immingham port; £60 million to enhance traffic flow on the A12 between the M25 and Ipswich, improving access to Felixstowe and Harwich ports; £165 million for the south-east Manchester relief road to improve access to Manchester airport; and £54 million for improvements to the North London line on that important rail freight link. Delivery of some of those schemes is subject to agreeing regional funding contributions and the outcome of statutory planning processes. The combined package will help the Government to relieve congestion and reduce crowding on the railways.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that lengthy list of projects, towards the end of which he mentioned the Manchester airport eastern link road, which is vital to many industrialists in my area who export to America and the continent. Will that road, together with the proposals in the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, go ahead as a matter of urgency? My area has been starved of resources for roads. That road, and the allied roads that go with it, will be of huge benefit to a wide area. Will he assure me that the road will go ahead?

Geoff Hoon: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a considerable interest in the road, and I am aware of the need to improve access to Manchester airport, particularly from the east. That is why the scheme is to be brought forward as a matter of urgency. As I have indicated to the House, however, it requires regional funding contributions, and those must be agreed quickly if we are to proceed with the urgency that the hon. Gentleman requires.

Jim Cunningham: May I ask the Minister what he is doing to encourage more people to use public transport?

Paul Clark: We have taken several steps, such as the introduction of the Local Transport Bill. Buses are the backbone of our public transport system, providing more than 5 billion journeys every year. We want to ensure that quality services are available across the length and breadth of the country. The Bill is important for local authorities making decisions about what best meets their needs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier to the steps being taken on railway travel.

James Gray: Swindon borough council recently announced that it is going to remove all its speed traffic cameras and spend the £300,000 that it will save on more effective safety measures. Does the Secretary of State agree that highly visible speed cameras have a real role to play in deterrence, whereas the cameras that motorists are not aware of until it is too late have no purpose other than to raise revenue?

Jim Fitzpatrick: That decision is for Swindon to take, but I think it regrettable. There will have to be negotiations with the local police and the road safety partnership on how that will play and when that change will be brought in. We have devolved responsibility and power to local authorities to determine what road safety measures are appropriate in their area, so this is very much a matter for them. Speed cameras have clearly saved lives and prevented injuries for many years, and they still have a role to play. I hope that Swindon will change its mind.

Jeff Ennis: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Barnsley council on working in collaboration with Stagecoach to provide free bus passes to 16 to 18-year-olds from next summer? Unfortunately, the scheme was opposed by opposition Tory and independent councillors, but does the Minister agree that the scheme will help youngsters better to access services in Barnsley, as well as work towards the Government's green agenda?

Paul Clark: My hon. Friend highlights exactly the powers that are available to local authorities to add to the minimum concessionary schemes that have generously been introduced by the Government. By doing that in Barnsley, councillors have decided what their priorities are, and I welcome that. All hon. Members should urge their local authorities to consider the options for improving transport in their communities.

Richard Ottaway: May I ask the Secretary of State about carbon dioxide emissions from shipping? I think that we all agree that ships are the most CO2 efficient way of moving goods around the planet, and that we must reduce CO2 emissions. He has engaged in a consultation on this issue; will he give us the nature and extent of his thinking on how that can best be achieved through shipping?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit this morning, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). There was a good exchange between us and members of the Select Committee about how we hope to reduce shipping emissions. The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation is convening at a meeting in July, and the United Nations framework convention on climate change will be held in Copenhagen next November. We are doing all we can through the IMO, which is the appropriate body through which to advance measures that will achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective.

Fiona Mactaggart: Today is white ribbon day—the day to mark the "end male violence against women" campaign. In view of the fact that women are less likely than—[Hon. Members: "Transport questions"]. I know—this is about transport.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is coming on to the safety of ladies on transport.

Fiona Mactaggart: In view of the fact that women are much less likely than men to have direct access to, and use of, a car, what is the Department doing to make sure that women who use public transport, walk or cycle, who have been shown in studies conducted by the Department to be fearful of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Topical questions should be short and I think that the Minister has got the message.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I agree with her that anyone using public transport should feel safe and be confident that they can be safe. That applies particularly to women. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter as she has, and I assure her that I will take a personal interest in the sort of measures that can be taken—for example, in terms of the new rail franchises, we are considering the installation of cameras to monitor trains. Giving women—and everyone—the confidence that they can use public transport safely is a perfectly proper ambition of the Department.

John Baron: Government figures confirm that foreign heavy goods vehicles account for 3 per cent. of journeys, but for 10 per cent. of HGV accidents, resulting in approaching 40 deaths a year. Given that Fresnel mirrors have been proven to eliminate the blind spot on the passenger side of those left-hand-drive vehicles and given that the Government have also admitted that the latest EU directive will not eliminate that blind spot, why will the Government simply not make all Fresnel mirrors mandatory for incoming HGVs instead of handing them out at our ports of entry as freebies?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of Fresnel mirrors, of which we are great supporters. The evidence that we have shows that they are effective in reducing the number of side-swipe incidents and improving driver vision. We are sharing with our European colleagues the information and the data that we are collating. We are always looking to improve the safety of all vehicles. One hopes that the use of such mirrors will be one measure to achieve that. At the same time, we have given the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency £24 million extra funding this year to address the issue of foreign HGVs, as a higher proportion of them are in breach of road safety regulations than are UK vehicles. That funding has meant staff increases, 24/7 coverage, new testing stations and many more inspections.

Simon Hughes: What sort of joined-up government is it when the Chancellor says how important it is to keep down the costs to the public of bank charges, energy prices, food and other purchases, yet three days previously, Transport Ministers refused to intervene when regulated fares were announced to go up 6 per cent. for everybody and unregulated fares by 11 per cent. from the new year? Where is the consistency?

Geoff Hoon: I have already set out the arrangements for fare increases and it was made very clear to the Association of Train Operating Companies that they should take account of the present economic circumstances. To that extent, the Government were clearly and consistently setting out their policy to deal with the present situation. It is important to acknowledge that some 60 per cent. of the total fares are regulated fares, so, in those circumstances, the overall rate of inflation in those fares has been retained ever since 1997.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Equality Impact Assessments

John Mann: What estimate she has made of the effect on the expenditure of public bodies of replacement of the requirement to undertake separate equality impact assessments with a requirement to undertake a single assessment.

Vera Baird: The new single public sector equality duty will ensure that public bodies are fair employers and that they design and deliver public services that meet the needs of the whole community. We expect that the costs will be mitigated by the efficiency gains of integrating the existing three duties into a single new process. The new duty is just one part of the simpler, stronger and more effective legal framework that the Equality Bill will deliver.

John Mann: Will the Attorney-General's "Race for Justice" declaration help public sector organisations, not least universities, to meet their single equality duty obligations? Does the Minister agree that there will be quite some kudos in being the first university so to do?

Vera Baird: I agree that a university that took that opportunity and seized that initiative would gain a good deal of kudos. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he does in the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism. Although "Race for Justice" is a criminal justice declaration, it is infinitely adaptable. It is there to expose systematically, and help to work away and erase, discrimination. It will read across excellently to universities.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Solicitor-General address the point about low-paid women, particularly those in public sector bodies such as Government Departments? Will she assure us that the single equality impact assessment will deal directly with that issue?

Vera Baird: An equality impact assessment was carried out when "A Framework for Fairness" was launched, and another will be carried out on the Equality Bill. I should make it clear, however, that we intend to tackle low pay for women in the public sector and also in the private sector. We have set out a number of models for how we intend first to expose it and secondly to tackle it. I believe that the hon. Lady will join cause with us, and I look forward to working with her.

Julie Morgan: I know that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that paving the way for equality carries costs, but does she also agree that we should measure the benefits as well? Should we not be especially vigilant at a time of economic difficulty when it is only too easy for things to slip, which would surely cause many more problems in the long term?

Vera Baird: I entirely agree, but let us be clear about one matter: in business terms, diversity is dynamic. Involving people with different life experiences and different perspectives with which to frame their talents strengthens business, as well as matching it better with its consumers. Yes, of course we must be especially vigilant at this time of pressure, but there is no dosh in discrimination.

Lynne Featherstone: I am keen for equality impact assessments to be effective, but I fear that in some cases they have been more about going through the motions. Can the Minister tell me what work is being done to assess the value and change that result from such assessments, and what extra resource she will provide under the new legislation to ensure that there is effectiveness, not just a tick-box approach?

Vera Baird: We have been examining, in specific terms, the impact that, for instance, going through a whole gender pay audit can have. Sometimes it is a process rather than an impact. That is why we have hesitated rather than going wholesale for impact assessments, assuming that they are the key to all mythologies and will put everything right. They do not necessarily do that.
	We are working on this, and we consider that the watchword for the Equality Bill and for equal pay in particular is transparency. We will pin a number of proposals on to that basic bedrock as we take the Bill forward.

Anne Begg: It does not matter whether one duty is involved or three: public authorities, especially local authorities, must have bought into their obligation to carry out those duties. What does my hon. and learned Friend think about Aberdeen city council, which, when it found that it had a £50 million budget deficit in February this year, cut services for disabled people in particular without conducting a disability impact study, any kind of assessment or any consultation? That was a despicable action by a Liberal-SNP administration. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that other local authorities, particularly those facing cuts in their budgets, do not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must bear in mind that other Back Benchers want to ask questions.

Vera Baird: Apart from the fact that that was obviously an utterly reprehensible way in which to behave, Aberdeen city council, like others, has a duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. It therefore behaved not only in a disreputable way, but almost certainly in an unlawful way. We must make it absolutely plain that that kind of discriminatory behaviour will not be tolerated as we move into a new era in which everyone starts to appreciate the importance and value that are to be attached to diversity.

Domestic Violence

Nicholas Winterton: What further steps the Government are taking to reduce the incidence of domestic violence.

Angela Watkinson: What steps she is taking to tackle violence against women.

Harriet Harman: We are continuing to back up and work with the police, prosecutors, courts and voluntary sector in their work to tackle domestic violence and we will change the law to abolish the provocation defence to homicide.

Nicholas Winterton: Mrs. Jennie Davies, the president of the Prestbury branch of the Women's Institute in my constituency, has drawn my attention to the National Federation of Women's Institutes campaign to end violence against women. What are the Government doing to develop and implement an integrated strategy to raise awareness of and prevent violence against women?

Harriet Harman: I would like warmly to congratulate and pay tribute to the National Federation of Women's Institutes on its campaign to tackle violence against women and its participation in the End Violence Against Women coalition. This morning, I spoke at a conference that it is having just down the road on that very subject. Some years ago, the Government set up inter-ministerial groups to tackle domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual offences. We have brought them all together so that we can work strategically across Government on tackling violence against women. In January, we will publish a consultation on how we make further progress.

Angela Watkinson: One third of incidents of violence against women are domestic, and the period between reporting a crime and the conclusion of a court case is often very long and one of increased risk. Too often the perpetrator of the violence remains in the family home and the mother and children are removed to a hostel. What more can be done to introduce justice into the system so that women can have the courage to report such violence and are not faced with having to take their children out of the family home while the proceedings are going on?

Harriet Harman: I agree that across the board, whether it is the police, local government, prosecutors or courts, we still have a long way to go, but we seem to be making real and substantial progress on tackling incidents of domestic violence. The British crime survey, in which women report to a confidential survey rather than to the police, shows that in the last 10 years the incidence of domestic violence has fallen by 58 per cent. We still need to tackle the great deal of suffering caused by domestic violence, but by working together and challenging the myths that domestic violence is just one of those things and that nothing can be done about it, we are making real progress.

Virendra Sharma: Does the Minister agree that in the light of the experiences of Southall Black Sisters in my constituency, more needs to be done to support specialist domestic violence support services, especially those helping black, Asian, minority ethic and refugee communities?

Harriet Harman: Across the board, support for victims of domestic violence, as well as for its prevention, is very important and I pay tribute to Southall Black Sisters, an organisation that I know my hon. Friend has supported and worked closely with over the years. If someone does not speak English, is thousands of miles away from their family and is not working outside the home, it might be even more difficult for that person to escape from violence. We need to have the right support services on the ground and, once again, I pay tribute to the National Federation of Women's Institutes, which is looking at how it can tackle domestic violence in rural areas. Whether it is in Southall or in a rural area, we need to make sure that victims have the right support so that women do not have to put up with violence and children do not have to live in fear of it.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the support that I received in making sure that the new court in Bridgend had a domestic violence court. As the three years of funding for the independent domestic violence adviser ends in March 2009, what help will Bridgend get to ensure that that invaluable help for women going through court proceedings is still available?

Harriet Harman: A lot of lessons have been learned from the pilot projects that have taken place in many courts—including at my hon. Friend's—which show how we can ensure that the perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. Just a few years ago, only half of all domestic violence cases brought to court resulted in a conviction. That is now up to three quarters, and all courts, prosecutors and police recognise that it is important to bring offenders to justice so the level of violence does not escalate.

Greg Mulholland: The cost of domestic violence is huge; in Leeds, it is estimated at £332 million a year. That is often not reflected in the funding from central and local government and the charitable sector that goes to domestic violence organisations, such as Behind Closed Doors in my constituency, which does a wonderful job in helping women in this very difficult situation. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that this issue should be looked at across the piece, and does she also agree that there is concern that some funding organisations do not prioritise domestic violence charities and organisations, because that is not seen as high profile or fashionable?

Harriet Harman: For the Government's part, we have backed the campaign against domestic violence at national level. We have supported the police in expanding their work on domestic violence, and over the past decade there has been a transformation in how they respond to domestic violence. We have backed up specialist prosecutors—and I pay tribute to prosecutors for now taking cases that might previously have been dropped—and we work across the health and education services as well. On delivery of local services, however, it is important that local authorities fund local organisations. For our part at national level, we have made this a priority. It is down to local authorities to recognise the scale of the problem in their area, and to make sure there are local services for local women.

Fiona Mactaggart: But does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in societies where women can be bought and sold like objects there is a greater risk of violence towards women, and what is she doing to try to combat this kind of exploitation of women and the consequent violence which leads to prostitutes, for example, being 40 times more at risk of a violent death than the rest of us?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend might well be referring to the fact that in local newspapers across the country we see women for sale for sex. It is important that we do not accept that as inevitable. Who wants to see in the back of their local newspaper, alongside "skip hire" and "lost pets", advertisements such as, "New Thai girls. Choice of two avail., satisfaction always...nr Jct 11 M4, parking," or, "Brazilian girls. Barkingside...£60 Full Service"? These are exploited women being sold for sex, and it is about time that local newspapers stopped taking advertisements from sleazy gangs exploiting women.

Theresa May: I welcome the Government's commitment to publishing a consultation on a Government strategy on violence against women, but I regret the delay in bringing this forward. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for such a cross-cutting Government strategy more than a year ago. All the groups involved in this area—including, so it would seem from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Prestbury branch of the Women's Institute—have been calling for such a strategy for some time now. Indeed, the End Violence Against Women coalition has even published a blueprint for such a cross-cutting Government strategy. Following the consultation, when will this Government strategy be put in place, and what on earth has taken the Government so long?

Harriet Harman: There has been no delay. We have been taking action across the piece, whether on domestic violence, sexual assault or human trafficking. We have been tightening the law, we have been backing up the police and we have been changing the court processes. That is producing results; now, for example, 45 per cent. more men are convicted of rape than 10 years ago. We are also challenging the myths and assumptions that go along with that. After 10 years of hard work on the issue—work which has made a difference in both rape convictions and in protecting women from domestic violence, and has highlighted the new threats such as human trafficking—the Home Secretary will launch a consultation in January on how we can make yet further progress. I urge the right hon. Lady not to undermine, or deny, the progress that has already been made, because we should be building the confidence of women in the criminal justice system, and we should be saying, "Yes we will take action, and it will make a difference."

Employment

James Purnell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on employment. Unemployment began rising in January, as this country, like so many others, began to feel the shockwaves of the credit crunch rippling out from the banking system in the United States. Each and every job lost is a personal tragedy. Our goal is to ensure that newly unemployed people do not fall out of touch with the labour market, and we will do everything we can to bring those who have been out of a job for some time back closer to the world of work. So, we will continue to reform the welfare state to help people back into work now and to prepare them for the upturn.
	Britain starts from a strong position. The number of people in work reached its highest ever level this summer—29.5 million; earlier this year, we experienced the lowest claimant unemployment level since the 1970s; and there are more than 500,000 vacancies in the economy. By contrast, in the 1980s and 1990s, claimant unemployment twice hit 3 million, and between 1979 and 1997 the number of people on incapacity benefits trebled to more than 2.5 million. We all know the human cost that lies behind those figures: communities were scarred, and still carry those scars today; and whole families were left without work, not just for years, but for generations.
	For the first time since 1945, the global economy is predicted to shrink next year. No country can be immune, but all Governments have the same goal: to make the downturn as shallow and as short as possible. If this had been done in the 1990s, the recession then would have been less costly to communities, less costly for individuals and less costly for the economy as a whole. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out details of a £20 billion fiscal stimulus package to support our economy—it is the right action to reduce, as far as possible, the human and financial cost of the downturn. The money means help for small business, a timely boost to the economy and capital projects to maintain employment.
	The money also means a significant boost for older people in this country; we are putting in place a basic state pension of £95.25 and an increase to the guaranteed credit, which will ensure that no pensioner need live on less than £130 a week. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that he wants pensioners to benefit as quickly as possible. As we are not able to increase the pension and pension credit rates before April, we therefore announced that an additional £60 payment will be made to 15 million people from January. That is in addition to the £10 Christmas bonus, which will be paid as normal. The measures represent a significant increase in Government support for older people, which will really make a difference to pensioners, particularly if prices fall as expected next year.
	The Chancellor also announced extra help for my Department next year. That £1.3 billion package will ensure that we can respond to the higher number of people claiming benefits. Over the past decade, we have reformed the welfare state to match more support with more responsibility. Yesterday's announcement will enable us to continue our reform of welfare, to offer real help to people in these tough times. We will be able to maintain the service we provide, and strengthen our response in three ways.
	First, we need to make the right support and conditionality available. We need to ensure that Jobcentre Plus can deliver as good a service as it does today to more people tomorrow. In the past, Governments have cut back on support and conditionality as the claimant count has risen. We want to do the opposite, and do more to help people, rather than less. Over the past 10 years, we have modernised our employment services almost beyond recognition. People used to get benefits from one agency and job advice from another—now someone cannot sign on without looking for work. Jobcentre Plus takes 80,000 calls a week, and its website gets 350,000 visits a day. The National Audit Office reports that
	"the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found significant improvements in unemployment levels in the United Kingdom...related closely to the adoption of active job-seeking measures".
	Therefore, our first priority remains to ensure that everyone continues to receive this top quality service, and I am pleased to say that the system is coping well. Our target for jobseeker's allowance is to process all new claims within 11½ days—in the year to date, we are processing them within an average of 10. For our crisis loans, demand has gone up, but processing times continue to fall, and budgeting loans are being dealt with 20 per cent. quicker than their target time.
	But with higher levels of claimant count, we need further investment. The extra money that the Chancellor announced yesterday will ensure that we are able to maintain and expand our offer during a time of increased pressure on our services—help with CV-writing and job search, and time with personal advisers to develop action plans; to identify skills needs; and to get support with training, child care and interview techniques.
	We need to ensure we have the right capacity. In the last spending round the Department reduced its staffing by 31,000 and has increased productivity overall by 12 per cent., as confirmed by the National Audit Office. We have saved money in back office processing and used that to invest in the front line. So there are now 1,500 more personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus than there were two years ago. But we need to recognise that in the current economic circumstances, we need to invest more in our front-line services, so we are today announcing a moratorium on Jobcentre Plus closures, and I can also confirm that the pre-Budget report will mean 6,000 more front-line staff in place in Jobcentre Plus next year.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that we reach people facing redundancy as early as possible. The Insolvency Service now informs Jobcentre Plus immediately of redundancy notifications it receives. We had already doubled the funding for our rapid response service. Yesterday, the money available was doubled again, allowing us to help all companies facing 20 or more redundancies. That service will bring people swift access to the £100 million that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills announced last month to help people retrain and develop their skills, so that they can move quickly back into sustainable work, like the workers at Butler and Tanner in Frome, Somerset, nearly 300 of whom lost their job when the printers closed in April this year. With the help of the rapid response service, it is estimated that 90 per cent. have now found new jobs.
	We know that local employment partnerships, which help match the unemployed to employers looking to hire, have been successful. Already more than 70,000 of our most disadvantaged customers have started work under the initiative. Now we will be able to extend that to include those who are newly redundant, too.
	We have also announced the national employment partnership. This group will be chaired by the Prime Minister and will include the heads of business and public sector bodies, with a remit to ensure that employers work with the Government to enable people facing redundancy to be moved as quickly as possible into new jobs.
	Thirdly, over the past 10 years, we have also opened up our service to private and voluntary sector providers. As David Freud recognised, that allows us to get the best of both worlds with Jobcentre Plus providing the core support and processing, and specialist providers helping those who find it hardest to get back into work.
	Despite opposition to them from some parts of this House, the new deals have been successful, but they need to become more personal to the individual rather than being based on age, so we are introducing the flexible new deal. Some concerns have been expressed about the viability of these contracts in new economic circumstances. I am glad to report that we have compliant bids from 24 organisations and we have a minimum of four organisations competing for each of the contracts on offer. But it is important that we do invest more in the flexible new deal, both to give providers confidence but also to make sure that this time people who are further from the labour market are not abandoned. Some people say that there is no point helping people furthest from the labour market in the current circumstances. We say the opposite: when times are harder, we should be giving people more help, not less.
	This Government are taking action, including action on the economy and action to help people face the effects of the global crisis. That is the right thing to do for this country, for individuals and for jobs. The £1.3 billion will help those who are newly facing redundancy and those who have been out of work for longer: more front-line staff, and more money for our private and voluntary providers, so that we can maintain our active regime. For those who have been out of work for some time, we will maintain and accelerate our overhaul of the welfare system to do everything we can to bring them back closer to the world of work. We will give more help now, to prevent individual tragedies today from becoming the scars on communities tomorrow. I commend this statement to the House.

Chris Grayling: May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement? I listened with astonishment as he kept on trotting out all the old, discredited claims about the Government's record on employment. Before the recession even started, their record was lamentable, despite all the boasts and all the misleading statements, such as the Secretary of State's claim that Britain has had record levels of employment. That is just not true. Britain had a higher proportion of people in work in both the 1970s and 1980s.
	The past decade has been one of wasted money and wasted opportunities. The vast majority of new jobs have been in the public sector, and not the private sector. Most new jobs have gone to migrant workers and not to British-born benefit claimants. The number of young people who are not in education or employment is 20 per cent. higher than a decade ago, despite the billions of pounds that have been spent on the Government's mostly ineffective new deal programmes, described recently as a "calamity" by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
	Before the recession started, the number of British people in work had already fallen by more than 300,000 in three years, so things were already getting worse. The number of people claiming incapacity benefit has barely changed for a decade and tens of thousands of unemployed people were excluded from the statistics because of clever manipulation of the figures by Ministers. For 10 years, the Government did not fix the roof when the sun was shining. Ministers have left themselves to run a marathon with holes in their shoes before they have even crossed the starting line.
	We are now seeing jobs axed at a rate of more than 2,000 a day and we have the fastest rising unemployment since 1992. The OECD says that that will get worse and that unemployment will rise faster in Britain than in any other G7 country. Even the pre-Budget report yesterday forecast steeply rising unemployment—small wonder that the DWP needs more money to cope with the challenge.
	No doubt that will help with the moratorium on jobcentre closures—what a farcical announcement that was. The Government have closed 492 jobcentres since 2002, and since unemployment started to rise in January they have closed a jobcentre a week. Guess how many they were planning to close next year? Three. Some moratorium. They have already nearly finished the closure programme.
	With what else does the Secretary of State meet this tremendous challenge? Another committee, chaired by the Prime Minister. What a relief that will be to the thousands of people who are nervous about their jobs. There is no help for the large numbers of people in our smaller firms who face redundancy. The business tax cuts, designed to help smaller companies, are due to last for one year, even though the Government say that unemployment will continue to rise into 2010.
	The Secretary of State boasts about the flexible new deal without saying that it will not even start for another year. Will he confirm that under the flexible new deal young people will have to wait 12 months and not six before they are eligible for new deal help? He could have announced the suspension of the rules that stop people retraining. We asked for that two weeks ago, so will he now take up our proposal to allow all jobseekers to train immediately rather than having to wait to be referred to the new deal? Have the employers joining the national economic partnership specifically committed to creating new jobs? If so, how many have done so? How will the Government ensure that small businesses that are considering making redundancies are aware of the rapid response service and will make use of it?
	Why did yesterday's statement not contain a real employment programme with incentives to employers to take on new staff of the kind for which we have called? When we launched our proposals, the CBI described them as "imaginative" and said that they would help
	"small businesses keep people in work".
	The Secretary of State has announced today a sticking-plaster solution to the biggest challenge that we face as a nation. Unemployment is set to rise sharply and the Government have no idea of how to deal with it. They have wasted 10 years of opportunity and are now out of money and out of ideas. Ten years ago, the Government inherited an unemployment rate that was falling fast. It looks as if they will do just the opposite for their successor.

James Purnell: That was absolute confirmation that the Tories are now the do-nothing party. We are offering real help to people in difficult times. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have absolutely nothing to offer people because they are setting themselves apart from the orthodoxy around the world that we need both monetary and fiscal action now to help the economy. The right thing to do is to ensure that the problems with the economy are as short and shallow as possible, to reduce the cost to people now and to the economy in the long run. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tories did in the '80s and '90s, when they said that unemployment was a price worth paying. They wanted us to believe that they had learned those lessons, but even this week the shadow Health Secretary said that a recession
	"on many counts...can be good for us".
	We have the Conservative deputy chairman saying that the recession should take its course. The only thing that we need to know about the Conservative Front Bench is that its members have not learned the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s, when they massaged and fiddled the unemployment figures and put millions of people on to incapacity benefit rather than helping them. In the middle of the 1980s, there was no requirement that people look for work. The then Conservative Government did not provide support or reform the welfare state as they should have done, but those are exactly the things that we will continue to do.
	I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He trotted out his list of figures but, as I mentioned when we last discussed these matters, they are rather esoteric interpretations of the facts. He said that more public sector than private sector jobs had been created, but that is simply wrong: three quarters of the jobs that have been created are in the private sector. He said that we had a lamentable record on employment, but we had the second-highest level of employment in the G7—second only to Canada.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that we were not going to act on unemployment, but we are proposing a package today that his party would not have proposed in the past, and could not propose today, because it is ideologically against taking action now to help people through the downturn. The Government will act because we understand the scars that the Conservative party left on communities, and we are determined to make sure that that never happens again.

Terry Rooney: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, but does he agree that it is as important to keep people in work as it is to get them off benefits and back into work? In respect of the Government's response to Dame Carol Black, 300,000 people a year move from work to incapacity benefit, so is it not time that we dealt with the anomalies and inefficiencies of statutory sick pay? Should we not address that as an issue in the first six months of sickness, rather than wait until 12 or 18 months down the line?

James Purnell: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes that report and the Government's response to it, and he is right that we need to look at the incentives open to employers. He will have seen in our response that we want to work with employers, and we will be happy to work with his Committee on how we can change the incentives for people. We must make sure that every part of the system has the right incentives to keep people in work, because we know that being in work is, in the main, good for their well-being. It is not in the interests of individuals, employers or the Government for people to fall out of work if they can stay in work.
	Our response today makes a significant advance in addressing Dame Carol Black's points, but we are happy to look at whether an even more fundamental change to people's incentives is possible. We would be happy to work with my hon. Friend's Committee on that.

Paul Rowen: May I also thank the Secretary of State for giving notice of his statement? I also welcome the moratorium on jobcentre closures although, as the shadow Secretary of State said, few were planned for next year. In view of that, and of the rising unemployment in certain areas, does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans to reopen closed jobcentres, especially in rural areas or areas where there are unemployment hotspots? Since December, the number of jobseeker's allowance claims has risen from 30,000 to 66,000. Is the Secretary of State planning to use the additional staff to ensure that the processing of claims is improved?
	We were told earlier this year that there would be a review of the social fund. One consequence of people who become unemployed facing delays in processing and the two-week delay in payment is that they have to apply for a crisis loan. When will he announce the results of the review, and is he going to employ more staff to process those social fund loans?
	I agree that engaging with employers is an important part of the job of Jobcentre Plus, but under the flexible new deal people have to wait 12 months before they get intensive support. They have to wait six months for basic support, yet the Freud report said that early intervention was essential, especially for vulnerable people. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to change the flexible new deal, so that intervention can take place much earlier, especially for vulnerable or young people?
	Finally, one consequence of yesterday's PBR was that some investment in public sector schemes will be brought forward. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with other Departments, such as the Department for Children, Schools and Families or the Department for Transport, to ensure that employers getting the contracts for those schemes are encouraged to take people off the unemployment register?

James Purnell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that it is actually 25 Jobcentre Plus offices that will be affected. I was slightly perplexed by his reference to rising processing times because they are within target and have been falling. Thanks to Jobcentre Plus staff, who have been working overtime and opening at weekends, we have maintained the service to which we are committed. We could not do that without extra investment next year, which is why the money coming in now is so important. It is the same for budgeting loans and crisis loans. We process crisis loans within two days, which is again under our target. It is important that we maintain those processing times because it is clearly important for people to get their money as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are looking at the social fund. We commissioned a report from KPMG on it, and we will make proposals shortly. There is probably some agreement around the House that, if we can use that money to improve people's financial skills and give them the help to bridge their way through difficulties and get back into work, that will be a very good thing.
	We obviously want to make sure that the flexible new deal is effective. The proposals that we will make build very much on David Freud's recommendations. He said that the new deal should work effectively, but having separate new deals for disabled, older and younger people meant that we were treating people according to their category rather than their personal circumstances. The flexible new deal frees providers to do what they do best, which is to innovate, and rewards them according to their achievements. The better they do, the more money they will get and, again, the money that we have announced today means that we can cope with the higher volumes and give providers confidence that we will be able to do that.
	We keep under review whether we should fast-track people on to the flexible new deal. People in many of the categories that the hon. Gentleman mentioned can already volunteer to go to that stage and young people who have been out of education or training—NEETs—can and will be fast-tracked to the intensive stage of Jobcentre Plus help and then on to the flexible new deal. We will keep that under review.
	It is important to say that the rapid response service and the £100 million allows that help to be provided to people even before they fall out of work, so the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was wrong to say that people have to wait to get trained; they do not even have to be unemployed to get training because they can get access to it before they fall out of work. The earlier we help people, the easier it is to ensure that they find their next job.

Gerald Kaufman: As the Member of Parliament whose constituency under the Conservatives was No. 1 in Great Britain for long-term unemployment and No. 1 in England for youth unemployment, may I thank this Government for the new deal, which the Conservatives opposed and the funding of which the Liberal Democrats opposed? Employment in my constituency has been transformed by the new deal and the local employment partnership, which has just provided 130 jobs at the new Tesco in Gorton. The direct training centre is training men and women to be builders for the new increase in building that will result from the Government's policies announced this week.

James Purnell: My right hon. Friend is right that the new deal has had a fundamental effect on unemployment. It has reduced long-term unemployment by three quarters. As he says, unemployment was one of the scars left from the 1980s, which he remembers so well.
	The problem that would occur under the Opposition's policies is that they would have to cut programmes, slow welfare reform and reduce the help available to people, because they are against the extra money that the Government put in yesterday.

Hugo Swire: Like so often, the headline announcements by the Government do not bear close examination. It is all very well announcing a moratorium on jobcentre closures due next year, but it is not much good to my constituency, which saw all three of its jobcentres close in January in Sidmouth, Exmouth and Axminster. Will the Secretary of State pledge today that he will re-examine whether there is a genuine case to reopen jobcentres, especially in deprived areas? Two of my wards in Exmouth—Town and Littleham—are in the upper quartile of deprivation on the national indices. Will he look at whether there is a genuine case for reopening jobcentres where they are needed—close to the people who need access to them?

James Purnell: I can give a guarantee that we will provide the service that people need. That is our commitment. We deliver services now through Jobcentre Plus, children's centres, GP surgeries and other community settings. If there are ways in which the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should improve the service in his area, I shall be happy to listen to them.

Alan Simpson: It seems perverse that at a time when there has been a severe contraction in the construction industry, Eaga, which is responsible for implementing the Government's warm homes programme, just last week said that any household in fuel poverty which applies for assistance will not be able to get it until the end of this winter because it does not have enough qualified people to deliver the upgrading of properties and the replacement of heating systems. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister, in the new partnership committee that he is considering, to seek ways of dovetailing local ownership of identifying where we have work that needs to be done this winter with the availability of the skills that need to be harnessed to deliver the upgrading work?

James Purnell: I can give that guarantee. Indeed, one of the things that we have discussed is how we can ensure that the UK can capitalise on the opportunity offered by the initiative that my hon. Friend mentions in particular, and green jobs in general. There are significant opportunities for jobs growth in that area, and I am working with many Departments, in particular the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to make sure that we achieve that.

John Penrose: The Secretary of State has announced a national employment partnership, a group to be chaired by the Prime Minister. Will that not be just another talking shop?

James Purnell: There was a similar scepticism when the then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, announced local employment partnerships, yet they have helped 70,000 of the hardest to reach people into work. We are now saying that we want to ensure that that initiative is available to people who have recently been made redundant as well. We think that it is right to work with many of the larger organisations, such as Whitbread, Asda and Tesco, which have been very supportive of that, and have ensured that they offer people work trials and guaranteed training. If we can make our system as flexible as possible so that people are ready to go into work, and employers can play their part in saying that they will take people on as quickly as possible, we can help to fill those half million vacancies and reduce the effect of the downturn on our economy.

David Winnick: In the 1980s the west midlands was devastated by unemployment. Does not today's statement demonstrate that, in contrast to what happened then, those who lose their jobs now will not be treated with indifference and contempt? If politicians do not want to lose their jobs, neither do our constituents.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right, of course. What he will see from this Government is real action, as I said. What we saw from the Conservative Front Bench was a scheme, to which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell referred, which fell apart within a day of being announced. The Institute for Employment Studies said that the scheme was almost 100 per cent. dead-weight, and the Federation of Small Businesses said that it would be a disincentive to hiring people who have recently become unemployed. It is because the Conservatives were not prepared to spend money in the downturn that they had to squeeze the scheme to the point of pretending that it did not cost any money. That is the difference between us. We are prepared to take action. They are not prepared to do anything to help people.

Adam Price: On the brink of the biggest economic downturn the world has seen since the 1930s, does it make sense either morally or economically to compel single parents to chase non-existent jobs in a deteriorating labour market, and threaten to reduce their benefits by up to 40 per cent. if they do not? Cutting automatic stabilisers in the midst of a recession is the mistake that the National Government made in 1935 when they introduced the means test. The Labour party then opposed Conservative policies. Why are they implementing them now?

James Purnell: That is the opposite of what we are doing. We are making the automatic stabilisers work even better. That is why we have announced an extra £60 in the Christmas bonus for pensioners. That is why there is a significant uprating of the pension—the biggest that we have had under this Government. That is why we are bringing forward child benefit increases. That is exactly why we have a £145 tax cut for people. Those things are making the automatic stabilisers work.
	Surely if we can get even one extra lone parent into work because of that support, that is a good thing. If, as we believe, we can get more than 70,000 more lone parents into work, that is families helped and lives transformed. We do not penalise people for not finding a job. We know that our support works, and we want people to take it up. That is why the system was created as it was. Ever since 1911 there has been conditionality in the system, and that is exactly what we will continue to have.

Sandra Osborne: May I inform the Secretary of State that I was a marcher on the people's march for jobs in 1983, when more than 3 million people were unemployed and the Tories did absolutely nothing about it? They were the do-nothing party then, and they are the do-nothing party now. I welcome the Government's proactive stance, but people who are employed in a company with fewer than 20 people may become unemployed and have no real experience of the benefits system. How will the extra resources be used to make them familiar with, and less fearful of, the process?

James Purnell: The rapid response service will be available to any company, making whatever level of redundancy, if they want to contact us. We guarantee that we will contact any company with more than 20 redundancies, and what my hon. Friend suggests is exactly what we will do: we will go in there and help people understand the benefits system and what they are entitled to. We will also, I hope, try to get them back into work before they have to sign on, by helping them look for work and with retraining, and by doing exactly as she suggests.

Nicholas Winterton: Aearo Technologies, a subsidiary of 3M, based in Poynton in my constituency, is taking 90 jobs to Poland. AstraZeneca, the largest employer in my constituency and essential to this country's economy, is shedding more than 1,250 jobs over three years. The reason that it gives is uncompetitiveness in this country and the importance of the competitive global market. How will the increase in national insurance improve the situation?

James Purnell: How would cutting back public spending now, in the middle of a downturn, improve the economic situation? That is the folly of the Opposition's policy: they would introduce fiscal tightening in the middle of an economic downturn. We propose to help the economy in the short term, and to make the downturn shallower and shorter, so that when the economy starts to grow, we can credibly say that we will live within our means and return the budget to stability. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

Judy Mallaber: I am pleased that Belper jobcentre is staying open, because although it is the constituency of West Derbyshire, it helps a number of my constituents. I also welcome the extra resources for the rapid response service to help those facing redundancy. But, to clear up any confusion, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the service is available not just to the private sector, where it has proved invaluable in the past, but to public sector organisations, such as Tory-controlled Amber Valley borough council, which is planning a large number of redundancies because of its complete financial incompetence?

James Purnell: Yes.

Peter Bone: Can the Secretary of State tell us what the following constituencies have in common: Birmingham, Hodge Hill; Bolton, South-East; Bolton, West; Bury, North; Eastleigh; Halesowen and Rowley Regis; Islwyn; Leicester, East; Leigh, Milton Keynes, South-West; North-East Milton Keynes; Rossendale and Darwen; South Swindon; Corby; Kettering; and Wellingborough? If he does not know, I can tell him that unemployment is higher there now than it was in 1997.

James Purnell: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's question was, but the facts are that unemployment hit 3 million twice under the Conservative Government, that it was 1.6 million when we came into power, and that it is under 1 million now.

Nigel Griffiths: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in Edinburgh, South in 1997, 2,037 people were languishing on the dole, but that this summer, thanks to the efforts of the new deal and this Government, that number fell to 667? I feel sorry for my right hon. Friend, because I know that he was waiting for an apology from the Opposition Front-Bench team for their policies of mass unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s, which they would bring back in this century.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right, and judging by the comments of the shadow Health Secretary, it seems that they still have not learned their lesson.

Christopher Fraser: Unemployment in my constituency has risen by 21 per cent. in the past year. Jobs have been lost in the manufacturing town of Thetford, and more are at risk. What would the Minister say to employers in my constituency, who fear that the proposed cut in VAT will do little to stimulate demand for British goods and preserve jobs in the manufacturing industries?

James Purnell: There is a £12 billion stimulus to the economy, and we very much hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents. If any of them are at risk of losing their jobs, we clearly share his worry about that. The rapid response service is there to help people if they do lose their jobs, but the whole point of yesterday's pre-Budget report was to ensure that that is less likely. It included £7 billion of help for small businesses.

Angela Smith: People in Chapeltown in my constituency will be very relieved today to hear that their jobcentre is one of the 25 that will remain open, but will my right hon. Friend also consider developing employment support services in the jobcentre, alongside the housing service and the voluntary sector, so as to serve better the needs of the long-term unemployed in that area?

James Purnell: We are certainly happy to consider that. As my hon. Friend knows, we are rolling out a new approach whereby people will be able to claim from Jobcentre Plus not only their benefits but their tax credits and housing benefit. They will be able to go to one place and get the information sorted out through one organisation, rather than through many different ones.

Mark Pritchard: The Secretary of State questioned the statement, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), that two thirds of all new jobs are being created in the public sector. However, that was also a lead story in  The Sun today. Has  The Sun got it wrong?

James Purnell: As I understand it, the Office for National Statistics has made it clear that three quarters of jobs are created in the private sector.

Andrew Slaughter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement that planned jobcentre closures, including that of the one at Shepherd's Bush, will not proceed. That Shepherd's Bush jobcentre is literally next door to the Westfield shopping centre, which has created 7,000 new jobs. However, the Tory council, which should have negotiated the employment benefits, has admitted that only 268 of the jobs are going to local people, and it has itself just issued redundancy notices to 4,700 people. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the reprieved jobcentres will get the resources to help my unemployed constituents, whom the Tories have clearly abandoned again?

James Purnell: Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues who have campaigned so hard for this announcement. He is right to say that the extra investment is needed, and the £100 million that we have said will be available will help his constituents, among others, to get exactly that help.

Bob Spink: I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for all that he is trying to do. Many thousands of my constituents are specialised, highly skilled finance and banking workers in the City. Their sector has been particularly hit by the credit crunch. Is there anything special that we can do to help them if they are made redundant?

James Purnell: Absolutely. The £100 million is there to get to people even before they lose their jobs. People may have banking skills that are highly transferable to other areas. With a little bit of quick retraining, we may be able to get such people back into work even before they fall out of work. If they do sign on for benefits, I should say that we give exactly the same priority to services for people with professional backgrounds as we give to services for people from different backgrounds.

Joan Walley: I welcome the statement on the extra measures that the Secretary of State has taken. However, the moratorium on jobcentres will come too late for Burslem. Will he revisit the whole issue of how we can get the skills match and the front-line staff needed to help with regeneration and the whole job market? Will he meet me to see how we can achieve more in Burslem?

James Purnell: We are happy to consider how we can deliver the service. As my hon. Friend knows, we have modernised it so that there is now one agency, Jobcentre Plus, where before there were two. We take 80,000 calls a week and there are 350,000 visits a day to our website. That is a way of making sure that we help people. If my hon. Friend feels that more is needed, we will be happy to discuss that with her.

Oliver Heald: Does not the Secretary of State's announcement of a major increase in spending on the flexible new deal for the long-term unemployed show that he is predicting a major increase in long-term unemployment? Does he agree with the Social Market Foundation, which has said that in the course of this recession, long-term unemployment—of more than 12 months—is set to quadruple?

James Purnell: Unemployment has fallen by three quarters since 1997. We do not predict unemployment levels. Obviously, we look at the independent predictions of independent experts, but it is not for the Government to make predictions of that kind.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend today. However, will he look into a particular aspect of the situation of people who have lost their jobs? They are in a bad situation, but the most disheartening part of being unemployed is finding a vacancy, only to discover that it was filled two weeks earlier, although it is still being advertised at the jobcentre. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that people do not waste their time in that way, that the employers who advertise in jobcentres notify them straight away when vacancies are filled, and that the jobcentres take down the notices about jobs that have been filled?

James Purnell: That is absolutely right. We depend, of course, on employers telling us when a vacancy has been filled. One of the things that the extra investment will do is to allow more people to work with employers, to get as many vacancies as possible advertised through Jobcentre Plus, so that they can respond to my hon. Friend's point.

Christopher Chope: The Government were very sympathetic to workers at JCB who accepted a reduction in pay in order to try to remain competitive and keep their jobs—but that flexibility is not available to people on the minimum wage. Will the Government extend the same flexibility to people on the minimum wage, so that if they choose to accept a lower wage in order to retain the right to work, they can do so?

James Purnell: I think that we saw some Members nodding at that. That exposes the true face of the Conservatives, who opposed the minimum wage and said that it would cost 2 million jobs—yet in fact there are 3 million more jobs in the economy.

John Battle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he ensure that the rapid response service goes for early intervention on skills training, so that if there is even a hint of redundancy in even the smallest firm, people start thinking about skills training as opposed to just looking at adverts for another job, so that this time a redundancy notice for any person may be seen as a chance to upgrade their skills—unlike what happened last time under the Tories, when people were left stood in dole queues and at home without hope?

James Purnell: I absolutely can give my right hon. Friend that guarantee. That is exactly what the rapid response service does. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was wrong to say that people cannot train when they are on jobseeker's allowance. He should read the Green Paper, which makes it clear that we have abolished the 16-hour rule where people are training to get themselves back into work.

Graham Brady: More than 250,000 young people have already been through the new deal twice, and 80,000 have been through it three times. What does the Secretary of State propose to do to ensure that the new deal genuinely prepares people for work? Is it not just a revolving door that keeps them off the register of the long-term unemployed?

James Purnell: The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, an independent organisation, has said that the new deal pays for itself, and it has helped to cut long-term unemployment by three quarters. We are reforming the flexible new deal on the lines that David Freud suggested, using private and voluntary providers, giving them the freedom to innovate, and rewarding them on the basis of results. Although the Conservatives say that they are against that, it is exactly the approach that they say that they would follow as well.

John McDonnell: I welcome the additional 6,000 staff in the jobcentres. Was that figure calculated on the basis of a ratio between staff and the numbers of unemployed? If so, will there be an automatic increase in staff beyond that 6,000 if the numbers of unemployed go up beyond the Government's current expectations?

James Purnell: Clearly, we use a range of scenarios and base our plans on that approach. I can give my hon. Friend my commitment that we will ensure that the service delivers for people's needs, and we will do that not only by investing more but by continuing our efficiency programme, which has enabled us to shift resources from the back office to the front office and to increase the number of personal advisers by 1,500.

Pre-Budget Report

George Osborne: I beg to ask leave to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration namely,
	yesterday's pre-Budget report.
	It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have not conceded a debate on this, for it was not just a report but a crisis Budget and a reckless gamble with the public finances. It introduces a £20 billion fiscal loosening and a £40 billion package of future tax increases. The VAT changes, which add £12 billion to the national debt, will come into force next Monday, before any parliamentary approval is possible and without the opportunity to raise the widespread scepticism that the public and retailers have expressed about its merits and costs. The prospect of a rise in national insurance, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has just confirmed hits anyone on an income of over £19,000, is already damaging confidence in a future recovery. The news that the Government are set to borrow more than any Government in history, and that the national debt will double to £1 trillion, has shocked the entire country.
	If this had formally been called a Budget, there would now be four whole days of debate on it; instead, this Government refuse to have even one. They are running away from the argument, because they are losing the argument. These are the issues that the entire country is talking about, and I believe that we should be debating them in this Chamber. That is why, Sir, I seek this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the pre-Budget report. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Gentleman leave of this House?

Hon. Members: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has leave. The matter will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when debate will take place for three hours.

Points of Order

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on the convention regarding written ministerial statements? If one looks at the small print of the pre-Budget report, one finds a number of issues about which one would have expected to have a written ministerial statement, at the very least. For example, there is a statement relating to the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency in my constituency, which employs a large number of people. It says that the Government are intending to examine "alternative business models". In the normal course of events, we would have expected a written ministerial statement on that, and it seems unreasonable that within the pre-Budget report a number of issues affecting our constituents, people who are working and people who are worried about the future of their jobs, are thrown away in a couple of lines in the footnotes. That is unacceptable and unfair.

Mr. Speaker: I have said that there will be a debate tomorrow, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he can speak then.

Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to pile into this Chamber—

Hon. Members: Yes!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nigel Griffiths.

Nigel Griffiths: Is it in order for them to pile into this Chamber on an important statement on employment, in which they have shown no interest, in order to demand a statement tomorrow? Why should it be that those who have no interest in the issue of unemployment—because they created so much—should have such a say in this place?  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is up to right hon. and hon. Members when they come into the Chamber. All I can say is that there have been occasions when I have been sitting in this Chamber when there have just been a few hon. Members attending to important matters. I often wish that they would pile in more often.

Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that you have allowed three days—[Hon. Members: "Three hours!"]—three hours' debate, may I ask you whether there is any procedural reason why the Leader of the House, who is sitting in her place now, should not rise to alter the business of the House for tomorrow and the day after, to allow a full debate on what has been the most significant Budget statement we have had for the last couple of decades? Would you invite her to do so? We are meant to have control over taxation and public spending in the House, which is what makes us the supreme legislature in the country—in theory.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not push his luck. I gave him three hours, not three days. I said that the debate would begin at the commencement of public business tomorrow, so there is no need for the Leader of the House to do anything. I have made a ruling that the debate will take place then.

Children (Protection of Privacy)

Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to protect children's privacy in the media; to make provision for the protection of children from avoidable emotional distress resulting from participating in, or being the subject of, media programmes or reports; and for connected purposes.
	I must admit that when I saw all the hon. Members piling into the Chamber, I thought that they had come to hear me. A few have remained, but unfortunately most have now piled out again.
	I would not want people listening to this debate to think that I had misspent most of the summer recess watching television, but I did perhaps leave for the office a little later in the morning and arrive home a little earlier in the evening, and I did enough channel-hopping to rekindle my intention to initiate the debate that I want to raise today. I say "rekindle", because I have been concerned for some time about just where we draw the line in deciding whether children should be the subject, directly or indirectly, of some of our more voyeuristic and sensationalist television programmes.
	We have often debated in the House the issue of children as the viewers of television programmes, whether we are discussing whether advertisements for junk food should be banned during children's broadcasting or expressing concern about what is shown before and after the watershed. Fairly strict guidelines are in place about the use of child actors in television or the theatre, which include a local licence scheme. When it comes to reality TV, fly-on-the-wall documentaries and daytime talk shows, however, it appears that the boundaries of what is acceptable are becoming increasingly blurred. I am particularly concerned about programmes that show children becoming distressed or which highlight their emotional or physical problems or their dysfunctional family lives.
	A colleague made a good point to me yesterday: in the past, such issues were usually addressed by making drama programmes, which would handle the issues much more intelligently and sensitively. We all remember programmes such as "Cathy Come Home" or "Boys from the Black Stuff", which were compelling pieces of social observation. Today's equivalent, however, would be to stick television cameras in every room of someone's house and then edit the programme to show the arguments and tears of a family tearing itself apart. We have seen a surge of such programmes over the past few years—programmes that feature real children in real-life settings, such as "Wife Swap", "Brat Camp", "Teenage Tourette's Camp", "Can Fat Teens Hunt?" and "I Know What You Ate Last Summer". For "Brat Camp", the TV company's promotional blurb ran:
	"What do you do if your teenage kids are rude, abusive, on drugs and out of control?"
	The answer seems to be: put them on TV.
	Some programmes handle their subject matter more sensitively than others. I recently saw part of a Channel 4 production, "Dana: The 8-Year-Old Anorexic", which was about a girl who weighed just 8 stone and who restricted herself to 175 calories a day. The programme provided an insight into the condition and a warning that girls—and young boys, too—are at risk of developing anorexia, but we are talking about a child with a form of mental illness, for that is what anorexia is. Could the same point not have been made without parading all the details of that child's life on television?
	Many of the shows that are of concern are parenting programmes, such as "Supernanny", "Little Angels" and "The House of Tiny Tearaways". I am not going to pass judgment on whether such programmes are educational or exploitative, not least because watching screaming toddlers is not my idea of entertainment; indeed, I have rarely managed to last more than five minutes before switching the television off. However, concerns were raised this year by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which said that the Government should
	"Intensify its efforts...with the media, to respect the privacy of children...especially by avoiding messages publicly exposing them to shame".
	The shows that concern me most, however, are the daytime talk shows, of which "The Jeremy Kyle Show"—described by a judge in a recent criminal court case as "human...bear baiting"—is the most notorious example. The programme serves up damaged people in dysfunctional relationships for entertainment. It is the modern-day equivalent of the freak show. Some shows feature children as participants, but the ones that I want to highlight today do not. Let me quote some titles: "If I can't have children, how can it be my baby?" and "Stop ignoring your daughter—I'll prove you're the dad!". Then it gets even more complicated: "Brother—I'll prove I'm the father to your ex-girlfriend's baby!" and "Admit you're a prostitute then prove my boyfriend's the dad".
	After the unedifying spectacle of those couples or former couples airing all their dirty linen in public, the matter is resolved with a DNA test result being announced live on air. I watched one such show last week—purely in the interests of research, of course—which involved a young mother and three young men, each of whom could have been the father of her eight-month-old baby. One had been in prison when the baby was most likely to have been conceived, but was now back in a relationship with her. The second, who was one of his mates, had got together with her once the first had gone inside and had acted as the child's father while he was in prison. Indeed, the second young man even had the child's name tattooed on his neck. The third young man was someone whom she had picked up on the way home from a nightclub and who, when told that he might be the father, had urged her to have an abortion. Of course, when the DNA test results were revealed live on air, it was the last young man—the one who did not want the baby—who turned out to be the father.
	People might make excuses and say that there is a public interest in showing such programmes or that they may encourage young women and men to be more careful about having unprotected sex. That would certainly be Jeremy Kyle's excuse. One might say that the show's producers will ensure that counselling is provided to the participants and that the young man involved will be given advice on how to be a good father, or that the participants do the shows of their own free will.
	Someone from ITV called me today and told me that the channel adheres to strict internal guidelines and to those in the broadcasting code. It always requires parental consent for under-16s to appear on a programme, and DNA tests are carried out only when it is an essential part of the storyline—a statement that is slightly disingenuous given that the storyline is usually about who the child's father is. It does not do DNA tests on school-age children, and does them only rarely on children over 18 months old—again, it is not done unless it is essential to the storyline—so the DNA tests mainly involve babies.
	One might say that what a baby does not know will not hurt them, but the chances are fairly high that a baby who features on such a television programme will find out about it when they grow up. People in the neighbourhood will not forget about it, and the child's future schoolmates will find out about it, so they risk humiliation and bullying, and feelings of rejection and hurt. I cannot help feeling that even if they do not find out about the programme, there is something plain wrong about it. Perhaps we do not use that word often enough these days.
	The obvious line of defence is that it is ultimately the parents' prerogative to decide how they bring their child up and to what degree they protect their child from or expose them to the risk of humiliation, embarrassment, bullying or worse. However, parents are enticed and encouraged by the media to appear on such shows, and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are not always sure what they are letting themselves in for. Carole Cadwalladr recently wrote an excellent article in  The Observer called "When reality bites, it leaves deep scars", which accused the show of disregarding evidence of a young man's mental health problems before he appeared on it. A DNA test was done, confirming that he was the father of a baby girl. When he was interviewed afterwards, he said:
	"I was totally stitched up...It was public humiliation...I just wanted the DNA test...And I didn't have the money to get it done...it just seemed that they didn't care."
	I suspect that there is an element of snobbery involved with such programmes. People think that kids with parents like that will have such dysfunctional lives anyway, and will be exposed to such pernicious influences and will be so damaged that the programme is the least of their problems, but I think that we have to establish a marker in the sand. That is what I want to do with my Bill. Surely the overriding principle when children are involved with such television programmes, either directly or by association, should be whether the show's commissioning or broadcasting would be in their best interests.
	The broadcasting code and the accompanying detailed guidance say broadly that due care
	"must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes...irrespective of any consent given by"
	a parent or guardian. Children
	"must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes."
	The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children believes that those guidelines do not go far enough, and it has set up an advisory body of experts to consider the welfare of children who participate in reality TV programmes. The NSPCC suggests that there should be greater recognition of the fact that it is often the most vulnerable families who take part in such programmes, and that parents and older children should have the right to veto any programme before its transmission. It also suggests that Ofcom should be able to intervene before programmes are broadcast and that the use of children in such shows should be carefully monitored. I agree.
	All I ask today is that the broadcasters should start to show more responsibility and that the relentless tide taking us towards ever more brutal, humiliating and degrading TV programmes should be halted, at the very least where children are concerned.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Kerry McCarthy, John Battle, Roger Berry, Annette Brooke, Ms Karen Buck, Alistair Burt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Andrew Gwynne, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Jamie Reed and Alison Seabeck.

Children (Protection of Privacy)

Kerry McCarthy accordingly presented a Bill to make provision to protect children's privacy in the media; to make provision for the protection of children from avoidable emotional distress resulting from participating in, or being the subject of, media programmes or reports; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 175].

european documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(11)  (European Committees),

Defence and Security Procurement

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16488/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Directive on the co-ordination procedures for the award of public contracts in the fields of defence and security; and endorses the Government's approach to the negotiations and its view that if, following European Council agreement on a text and negotiations with the European Parliament, the document remains within the UK's negotiating position, the Commission draft Directive could be supported. —[Mr. Frank Roy.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [ lords] (programme) (no. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [ Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 6th October 2008 (Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [ Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message 
	1. Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Mr. Frank Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [ Lords]

Lords  message  considered.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Functions etc of a reclaim fund

Lords amendment: No. 7A.

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 10A. [ Interruption.]
	May I ask Members who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly?

Ian Pearson: One of the central threads of the many debates that we have had in both this House and the other place was the principle of transparency, particularly in relation to the use of powers set out in the Bill. I wanted to be clear that transparency has been and always will be crucial to the scheme, and the Government are committed to acting openly when exercising the powers.
	The amendment seeks to insert into clause 5 this provision:
	"The Treasury shall lay before Parliament a copy of any direction given in subsection (4)."
	Clause 5 includes a direction-making power, and we discussed the matter at some length in the Public Bill Committee. I would like to make it clear that the Government do not envisage using the direction-making power in the Bill to interfere in the day-to-day running of the reclaim fund and the management of its money. This will be the sole responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, which will regulate the reclaim fund for prudential purposes. I want again to stress first and foremost that it is not the case that the reclaim fund is a public sector body. The Bill sets out how the reclaim fund will be constituted. It does not establish a reclaim fund; that is a task for the industry. The reclaim fund is clearly independent of Government.
	As I have explained on previous occasions, the direction-making power that we are taking is an ultimate sanction that the public will expect us to have to ensure that the reclaim fund functions in accordance with its articles of association, in particular in those areas that the Financial Services Authority will not regulate for prudential purposes. This is a power to be used only in exceptional circumstances, to require the reclaim fund to comply with its statutory requirements under legislation—no more and no less. We recognise that concerns remain about the transparency of how the power may be used. We have reflected on that, and we are content to agree to amendment No. 7A.
	Concerns about transparency have also been voiced in relation to the definition of dormancy. The reserve power for the Treasury to amend the period of inactivity required before accounts can be considered dormant was originally introduced by negative procedure, in line with other powers contained in the Bill. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee subsequently considered the power and recommended that, since the definition of a dormant account is central to the purpose of the Bill, the power to amend the 15-year period should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have listened to those comments, and are happy to agree to Lords amendment No. 10A, in accordance with that recommendation.
	I believe that these amendments are straightforward, and I take this opportunity to thank again the Members who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill has received general support from all parts of the House, and I am sure we all look forward to its enactment and to resources being made available for the wider benefit of society.

Mark Hoban: May I begin by echoing the Minister's concluding remarks? People are looking forward to implementation of the Bill, and we welcome amendments Nos. 7A and 10A and the Government motion to agree.
	As the Minister said, the definition of dormancy is central to the Bill, and people are rightly concerned about any relaxation there might be in that definition, because they are rightly concerned about how they maintain their rights to what is effectively their money. It is right for the Government to have conceded that any changes in the limit should be dealt with through the affirmative procedure.
	On amendment No. 7A, as the Minister said, the Treasury has powers under the Bill to give directions to the private company that will operate the reclaim fund. There was considerable discussion in this House and the other place about what checks and balances should be in place to control the use of the power by the Treasury to make sure that it is subject to proper scrutiny, and various attempts were made in both this House and the other place to introduce some controls. The last time we debated this Bill in the House, I tabled amendment No. 12, which would have required the Treasury to publish a direction within 28 days, and the Minister said:
	"I am inching towards what the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had to say."—[ Official Report, 3 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 64.]
	I am pleased that he has inched so far. Although he has not quite adopted the wording of my amendment, the Government came pretty close to doing so in the House of Lords.
	I am grateful for the changes the Government have introduced as a consequence of the debates in this House and the other place, and we welcome the amendments.

Jeremy Browne: Although the Bill has the word "Dormant" in its title, it seems to come back to life frequently. We now again have an opportunity briefly to discuss this important Bill, which has, throughout proceedings in the other place, in Committee and in this Chamber, commanded the broad support of all political parties. That is also true of these two amendments.
	We support Lords amendment No. 7A, which will add transparency to the process here in Parliament in a way of which we approve. Perhaps more importantly, we support Lords amendment No. 10A. It is a key consideration, because the 15-year period for dormancy is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, and in time it may be judged that a period of 10 or 12 years, or longer than 15 years, is more suitable. The provision is central to the legislation, and it would be inappropriate for a change of that centrality to take place without our having an opportunity to reflect on it and discuss it.
	I am pleased that the Government have chosen to take such an open-minded approach to the proposals that have been made, and the Liberal Democrats share the objectives that have been outlined both by the Minister and by the Conservative spokesman.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 10A agreed to.

PENSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pu rsuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Pensions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7th January 2008 (Pensions Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Mr. Frank Roy.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Pensions Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 132, 135, 147, 149, 150, 171 to 176, 188, 193, 194, 198, 199, 202 to 205, 239, 240 to 246 and 278. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Jobholders

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 56, Lords amendment No. 57 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 66, 120, 123, 133, 136, 137, 146, 153 to 155, 157 to 168, 170, 207 to 214, 223 and 228 to 230.

Rosie Winterton: Today, we enter the final stages of this landmark Bill, which will transform the saving habits of millions of people in the country. Before we begin this final debate, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) and to my noble Friend Lord McKenzie for all their stalwart work on the Bill. Thanks to their efforts, progress on this Bill has been characterised by a high degree of constructive dialogue between the Government, stakeholders and the Opposition. That consensual approach is clear in the vast majority of the amendments before us. I hope that, during this final debate, we will retain that consensus approach to a certain extent.
	On the issue of qualifying earnings, we reached a broad consensus on the way forward because of the constructive and supportive approach taken by a number of our stakeholders. Among others, I should like to thank the CBI, the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of British Insurers and the TUC as well as colleagues in both Houses for their contributions to the debate on this important area.
	As I said, the Government have listened to the points that have been made in debate, and to our stakeholders. Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 57, 61 and related consequential amendments are designed to address concerns about the potential complexity of the band of earnings at the heart of the quality test.
	Amendment No. 61 makes it clear that trustees can change scheme rules as a route to compliance, but they still need to obtain the employer's consent to change those rules. In order to minimise the risk of levelling down, this power cannot be used to reduce contribution levels. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and related consequential amendments enable employers to use an annual pay period to smooth the impact of irregular payments to workers.
	Amendment No. 57 allows employers who are confident that their workers are on course to receive the new minimum level of pension savings to certify that their arrangements meet the quality standard. That will increase clarity and certainty for employers, while ensuring that individuals' savings remain protected. The detailed processes will reflect the principles agreed with stakeholders and will be set out in regulations and guidance.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has tabled an amendment to amendment No. 57 that would remove the Government's ability to repeal the process of certification in the future. All our stakeholders have agreed that a review in 2017 is appropriate. Removing proposed new subsection (9) would mean that, following the review, we would not be able to repeal this legislation if it was felt that certification was not effective or necessary from the perspective of either workers or employers.
	Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 ensure that the limits of the earnings band are reviewed annually in line with changes to average earnings, and uprated accordingly. This proposal was an Opposition amendment but we accept that it is consistent with Government policy, and that is why we have agreed to it this evening.
	Amendments Nos. 5, 12 and 15 extend automatic enrolment to workplace personal pension schemes. We always intended that automatic enrolment would apply to workplace personal pensions but concern was expressed on Report in the Commons that they could fall within the scope of two European consumer directives and that that might have prevented automatic enrolment into the schemes. Happily, when the Bill was introduced into the other place and following discussions with the European Commission, we were pleased to be able to announce that that would not be the case. That puts provision by the insurance industry on a level playing field with other provision, and it was warmly greeted by all our stakeholders.
	Amendments Nos. 28 to 32, 41 to 46 and 57 make technical changes to the scheme quality requirements to ensure that the widest range of schemes can qualify. Other amendments in this group are minor and technical in nature and are entirely consistent with the overarching policy. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to be debating the Pensions Bill again as it moves majestically towards the statute book. As the Minister kindly said, it is good to see the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in his place. He is clearly a sad person because he cannot keep away from pensions, despite his huge new responsibilities in the energy field. I suppose we will have him to thank if the lights do not start going out in a few years' time.
	I join the Minister in thanking all the stakeholders that have been part of the process. She listed some organisations, and even more have been involved. For the real enthusiast, there have been any number of seminars, get-togethers, conferences and events to try to get the thing right. The Opposition are not wholly convinced that there is not a series of unanswered questions, but those questions are for another day.
	It is interesting that the Government still have what I might describe as a schizophrenic approach to saving for retirement. Only yesterday they announced—well, they quietly slipped through—a further £2.3 billion stealth tax on private pension pots. Of course, at the moment they are trying to give people in this country two different messages. One is that the problems that have got us here have included borrowing too much and saving too little. The other is that they are to provide a fiscal stimulus that they would like us all to take down to the shops immediately and spend.
	We face a huge number of amendments from the Government and just a sprinkling from the Opposition—ones on which the Government were defeated in the Lords or that the Government were good enough to accept. To that extent, there will be a reasonably pre-festive season air about this evening. Having said that, the Bill is not in the same league as the Pensions Act 2004, to which there were more than 1,000 amendments, so perhaps things are getting better—even though we still have an awful lot of amendments on our plate this evening.
	I pay tribute to my colleagues in the House of Lords. Lord Skelmersdale and Baroness Noakes made a huge contribution to improving the Bill in the Lords, sometimes with the co-operation of Lord McKenzie, the Minister in the Lords, and sometimes without. They have made some major changes and a lot of minor ones, some of which I will not necessarily have time to touch on this evening, but on the whole considerable improvements were made to the Bill. I also pay tribute to those who served on the Committee in this House. It was a model of amity, co-operation and consensus, as far as that goes.
	It is worth mentioning a couple of issues before I go into the detail of the first group of amendments. We have been allocated three hours for five groups of many amendments. Life being what it is, the fifth group relates almost entirely to an issue that has not yet arisen in the House—regulation of buy-outs of pension funds. It would be a huge tragedy if we did not reach that group in the time that the Government have allocated to us this evening.
	On the first group, I intend to be even more selective than the Minister in the amendments that I want to speak to. As she rightly said, there are many technical and minor amendments and I do not see any purpose in labouring them in any detail. The central issues are clear. They are mainly concerned with the concept of automatic enrolment. My party has been convinced on that matter in the pensions field for longer than any other party. Indeed, it was our policy before the last election. It is important to recognise that in many ways we are all slightly mesmerised by the architecture—the design—of personal accounts, but the more important issue is auto-enrolment. The top prize is to auto-enrol people into existing pension schemes that have much more generous provision than the overall 8 per cent. contribution envisaged for personal accounts. It is important to remind ourselves of that as we get into the detail of the amendments.
	As I said, many of the amendments bring simplification, clarification or rationalisation to the original draft of the Bill, and I want to make some observations on some of the amendments before I talk to our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 57. The first issue principally revolves around Lords amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, which the Minister touched on. They were moved by Baroness Noakes and are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State does not in future let the value of the earnings threshold for personal accounts fall behind increases in the level of earnings generally.
	There was one of those bizarre exchanges in the Lords in which the Minister, Lord McKenzie, was clear that it is, and was, the Government's policy to uprate the earnings band in line with earnings. However, that was not in the Bill. As originally drafted, it appeared to give the Secretary of State carte blanche to decide how and when to revalue the band. Lord McKenzie talked about needing flexibility. He said:
	"We always have this dilemma where we have a clear policy and objective and believe that uprating by earnings is the right way forward. However, given that we are setting down reforms for decades to come, there must be a strong argument in favour of flexibility."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 1267.]
	I do not regard that as a dilemma. If the policy is clear, why does the legislation not follow it? In the event, that argument did not persuade Baroness Noakes or, indeed, their lordships, because it went to a vote and the Government were defeated. I thank the Minister of State for graciously accepting that the amendment should stand.
	The main issue—and it is very important, for reasons that I shall describe—revolves around Lords amendment No. 57 and amendment (a). Amendment No. 57 allows for what is called self-certification in respect of the qualifying earnings rule. That is a complex but important matter. It is clear from the design of personal accounts—we accept this as a principle—that if one is introducing auto-enrolment either into an existing scheme or to personal accounts, there has to be a mechanism whereby it is proven that the terms of the existing scheme are at least as beneficial to the employees as personal accounts would be. All the evidence from organisations such as the National Association of Pension Funds is that existing schemes will overwhelmingly be much more generous in terms of the employer contribution than will personal accounts.
	Perhaps this is more of a theoretical than a practical problem. However, it is clear that there has to be a test of some sort—the qualifying earnings test—and it has to strike a balance between two different things. One is, of course, to protect employees' rights. That must be clear. The other is the real need for the test to be as easy, cheap and straightforward as possible for employers to operate. We do not need another complex regime—a third regime—sitting alongside PAYE and national insurance as an extra burden on employers.
	I pay tribute to the industry's working group, whose views I shall come to in a minute, because it has worked so hard with officials over many months to get the right answer. Indeed, I think that it is still working with them. The group includes organisations such as the Association of British Insurers, the CBI, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Society of Pension Consultants and the National Association of Pension Funds. Its concern, which is the same as ours, is that if the test is not simple, cheap and straightforward to operate, it could encourage the process of levelling down, whereby the introduction of personal accounts—apparently in 2012, which we might discuss later—would give an extra impetus to employers to close their existing defined benefit schemes and point their employees in the direction of the Government-backed personal accounts. We strongly believe that every possible measure should be taken to try to discourage that process, because otherwise there could be the nightmare scenario in which many people are disadvantaged by ending up with personal accounts rather than existing, and much more generous, company schemes. We share the concern that the test, as applied in practice, could assist the process of levelling down. I shall come to the views of those key stakeholders.
	The current position could fairly be described as a work in progress. There have been discussions, and there were more discussions with the industry working group over the summer. The Government have moved somewhat by accepting some of the principles that would make the process simpler but, in fairness, there is still some way to go on the detail.
	The next step, as I understand it, is the publication of detailed regulations on the qualifying earnings test. We and, indeed, the industry will look very closely at just how the regulations are drafted, and if we do not get the drafting right at the next attempt, an incoming Conservative Government would certainly wish to revisit it as a matter of urgency.
	I turn to the concessions that the Government made on the subject in the House of Lords in early November. In a letter, Lord McKenzie cited the efforts of the stakeholder group led by the ABI, conceded that there should be a self-certification procedure, which we welcome, and said that
	"employers will not be required to make retrospective reconciliation payments if contributions unexpectedly fall short, unless the detriment to an individual exceeds certain de-minimis levels",
	and that the levels will be set in a way to stop detriment to particular individuals. That was a major step forward, because the Government undertook what Lord McKenzie described in his letter as
	"a departure from the policy of an individualised test".
	He said:
	"In developing this approach we have sought ways to increase clarity and certainty for employers going forward, without opening up the risk that some individuals find themselves regularly or materially losing out"
	and he talked about getting the balance right. The Opposition still think that, despite all the best efforts, the balance is not quite right, but I am prepared to concede that everyone is doing their best to try to reach the right answer.
	In its briefing for this debate, the CBI expressed the concern to which I have referred: that the original test, as drafted, could contribute to levelling down. It also said how important self-certification is. The self-certification point has now been conceded, and that is important. However, the CBI goes on to say that
	"employers and pensions industry professionals alike were very concerned about maintaining high quality existing provision in the face of an impractical qualifying test that defines pay in a way that does not meet the current market standard. The costs associated with complying with this definition would provide an incentive to level down into Personal Accounts."
	That is the nub of the issue. What was originally proposed departed from the standard current industry practice, so it needed to be tackled urgently. The CBI continues:
	"The self-certification approach ensures firms need not take on significant administrative costs, without affecting the levels of contribution made to their scheme...We strongly support amendments to introduce self-certification, which is a robust but less burdensome approach.
	In addition, we acknowledge the move to annual reconciliation as a major—and very welcome—step toward simplification."
	The Association of British Insurers, which has been leading on all the issues relating to the earnings test, had this to say in its press release of 6 November:
	"we, along with other industry groups, remain concerned that the wording of the key amendment to the Pensions Bill on self-certification may not achieve these aims"—
	that is, the aims of simplicity and so on. The association goes on:
	"The current drafting of the amendment adds considerably to the administrative burden for employers and risks discouraging them from continuing to provide pensions to their employees that have higher contributions than the level set for personal accounts."
	It says that it hopes that the issue can be resolved and makes it clear that it is prepared to carry on working with the Government on these matters. That is encouraging.
	I look to the Minister for an absolute assurance that, just because the Bill is passing into law any time soon, she and her Department will not lose interest in the nitty-gritty work that still needs to be done on the qualifying earnings test. As the Minister pointed out, my amendment (a) would remove subsection (9) of the new clause in Lords amendment No. 57. It is important that we make that stand, because it seems to me that the current position is as follows. By dint of a lot of hard work by officials and stakeholders, we have made significant progress. Further progress needs to be made on the regulations, and I hope that it will build on the discussions that have already happened.
	I am totally bemused by why the Government now want to put into the legislation what is effectively a proposal to go back to square one some time in the future. We are deeply suspicious of that proposal. We see no need for the power in proposed subsection (9), which enables the Secretary of State to repeal the whole new clause by order.
	We will talk at some point about the question of a review after five years of personal accounts, but if something cataclysmic occurred in the context of personal accounts and of the qualifying earnings test and how it applies, I am sure that the Government of the day would wish to get to the bottom of the problem through primary legislation. That would be fair enough. I commend amendment (a) to the House, and subject to any further comments from the Minister on the issue, we will press it to a Division.
	The final issue—I appreciate that to some extent I am cherry-picking the really important issues from this huge number of amendments, which are not of our making, as I explained—is one that the Minister has already touched on, which concerns auto-enrolment into workplace personal pensions, or WPPs. That was a major concern during the passage of the Bill in our House and is a matter of huge worry to organisations such as the ABI. In fairness, there is a great deal of consensus about it. I remember having private discussions with the then Minister, the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire, on how it could be sorted out. Lord McKenzie recently emphasised the importance of doing so:
	"Workplace personal pensions are an important and growing part of the pensions market. Membership of workplace personal pensions is around 47 per cent of current private sector pension membership, which represents about 3.3 million employees, involving total contributions of £6.7 billion a year."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 957.]
	He said that it had always been the Government's intention to include WPPs within the scope of this legislation, but there were concerns from a legal point of view that they would fall foul of the European directives on distance marketing and unfair commercial practices.
	In our discussions with bodies such as the ABI—I am sure that there were similar parallel discussions with Ministers—they were very worried that if some clarity were not sought and obtained as a matter of urgency, that could stop in its tracks the healthy growth in WPPs throughout the British workplace. The good news is that the European Commission has now confirmed in writing that it takes the same view as the Government, and this group of amendments reflects that positive outcome. Let us hope that that exchange of letters with the Commission is enough to ensure that there is no future legal challenge on this issue. As far it goes, it is good news for those who were concerned about the Bill's unintended effect on WPPs. It now seems clear that WPPs can be used to discharge the duty on employers to operate an automatic enrolment system. I very much welcome that, as does, I am sure, everybody involved.
	Those are our concerns arising out of this group of amendments. I have argued for amendment (a). Let me leave the House with this thought, which is again to emphasise the huge importance of automatic enrolment in this legislation and for the future of British pensions. That is so much the case that a few days ago the ABI issued a statement asking for it to be dealt with in the pre-Budget report; I am afraid that it was disappointed. It says in its press release:
	"Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, which is due to begin in 2013, should be brought forward and introduced as soon as possible. If it were to start in 2010, it could lead to additional long-term savings in excess of £500 million by 2012."
	Earlier today, I spoke at the ABI's savers conference, where that proposal was again made. At the end of its press release, it says:
	"The Government has a golden opportunity to boost workplace pension saving by enabling automatic enrolment now. The pensions industry, employers and the rest of the private sector is ready to deliver auto-enrolment as soon as the green light is given."
	It would be interesting to have some indication from the Minister as to whether that forms any part of the Government's thinking. Beyond that, I have nothing to add, and I look forward to any further comments that the Minister might have.

Paul Rowen: I join others in congratulating those in the other place on all their hard work. I especially congratulate my colleagues, Lord Oakeshott, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Thomas, and hon. Members here on the work they have done on a mammoth Bill, which is now coming to a close.
	In her opening remarks, the Minister rightly commented on how, during the passage of the Bill, we have maintained a broad consensus, which is important for stability and long-term development. This group of amendments— 101 are included, the majority of which the Government introduced—shows that many of the issues and concerns raised during the Bill's consideration here and in the other place have been listened to, and I welcome that.
	As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, auto-enrolment is the key to the success of the scheme. We are talking about between 4 million and 7 million people being enrolled, and upwards of £170 billion being invested. That is investment of a size and order considerably larger than what has been achieved in other pension schemes. It is a mammoth task, and ensuring that auto-enrolment is made straightforward and effective is going to be the key to the success of the scheme.
	Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 clarify the fact that re-enrolment will not apply if a job holder stops saving or opts out within a prescribed period before re-enrolment is due. The amendments set out the timings in more detail. Although we see their necessity, I say to the Minister that we do not want to go down the New Zealand route. It has seen a 30 per cent. drop-out rate on the quick saver scheme. Auto-enrolment is crucial to the Bill's success and we need to ensure that the Government support employers as much as possible to ensure that re-enrolment is a consistent policy.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne about auto-enrolment for workplace pension schemes. That element was missing from the pre-Budget report statement yesterday, and I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will give us some idea of when, or if, the Government are considering bringing the date forward. Given the amount of work that has to be undertaken to set up the scheme, the more of the other things that we can get done earlier, and the more we can encourage people in existing schemes to auto-enrol, the better.
	I am pleased that the Minister has said that she accepts amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, which deal with the value of the earnings threshold and ensure that it does not fall behind the increases in the level of earnings. That is critical to the success of the Bill and to ensuring that people have a pension commensurate with what they need to live on when they retire. We know what has happened to the state pension. The Government have not given a commitment to restore the earnings link by a set date, and as a result many pensioners are in poverty or are having to apply for pension credit. If we are to have a scheme, it is far more preferable to ensure that it keeps up to date with increases in earnings. That is critical. I hope that the Minister will say when she is going to restore the earnings link to the state pension. That measure could have been introduced in the pre-Budget report.
	I congratulate the Government on what they have done in amendments Nos. 5, 7, 13, 16, 21, 30, 31, 55 and 134 to permit workplace personal pensions to be used for auto-enrolment. When the Bill was discussed earlier in this House, the major concern was that the auto-enrolment of workplace pensions could have been outlawed by two EU directives. Again, I am grateful for the work that the Department has done to ensure that that is not the case and that the auto-enrolment of workplace pension schemes can continue.
	We support the Conservatives in their amendment (a), which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to Lords amendment No. 57. We are grateful that the Government accepted Lords amendment No. 57, because it is vital that existing schemes and the duties placed on employers are made as easy as possible. Having a self-certification scheme that does not set unnecessary conditions is critical to the retention of those existing schemes. We have made the point all along that we did not want the Bill to be used as a levelling-down exercise for existing pension schemes, and the amendment would at least ensure a mechanism that would enable employers to comply with their duties satisfactorily. However, the Minister said that she had agreed with stakeholders that there was going to be a review in 2017.
	I accept that. However, in the other place, Baroness Noakes questioned the need to allow the Secretary of State automatically to sweep the provision away. She did not receive a satisfactory answer, so I hope that the Minister will give us one today. Our view is that if such a major change—one that could affect existing pension schemes—is to be contemplated, it should be the subject of primary legislation. So far, the Government have taken all the various groups with them—stakeholders and the parties in this place. I would not want the change made possible by Lords amendment No. 57 as drafted to be made, so I hope that the Minister will reconsider her position. It is not a pressing issue—the Government will not fall if amendment (a) is accepted and it will not materially change the workings of the Bill—but in the long term, people would be given the satisfaction of being listened to.
	Lords amendment No. 159 deals with the director of a corporate body not counting as a worker. Again, that seems to be a sensible amendment and we support it.

Julie Kirkbride: I, too, welcome the Minister to her new role. Picking up a complicated Bill after Committee, Report and Third Reading cannot be the easiest thing to do. However, as other hon. Members have said, there has been constructive engagement among all the parties—the parties in this House and stakeholders outside—on the way forward for these measures, as well as broad cross-party support, because we need to increase pension saving across the nation. It is therefore reassuring that that engagement has continued.
	However, I would like to echo the concerns that have been expressed. If there has been one disagreement among the political parties, it is the prospect of those of our fellow citizens who have a better pension scheme than that which will be offered under the Bill finding their scheme being levelled down. Once the provisions come into force, there will clearly be a temptation for employers to look again at what they offer and to contemplate having all their employees—or at least all their new employees—on a scheme that complies with the standards of the Bill, rather than on the scheme currently in place.
	I sincerely hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that have been raised about having a self-certification scheme, so that there will not be any payroll issues relating to the administrative costs of the new measures. My particular worry, given the debate so far, is that the Minister wants to be able to strike out what is good in the Bill by ministerial decree, rather than through further debate in the House. Employers want reassurance on this issue, and will not want to think that the self-certification provision can be taken out by ministerial decree, because that will add to the de minimis situation. We need to hear some good reasons why the Government's way forward is a good one, because the sanctions for employers who do not fully comply and co-operate include imprisonment.
	Yesterday, we heard about the seriousness of the economic situation facing the country, and the Bill will add further pressure for employers, who will also face a national insurance increase around the time the Bill comes into effect. The pressures on them will be considerable, and the maximum reassurance that the House and the Minister can offer will be appreciated. I look forward to hearing her arguments, which might be in agreement with Conservative arguments.

Rosie Winterton: First, I thank the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)—I know that the hon. Lady was also on the Committee—for their points about consensus, which has been an important part of our debates.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale spoke about earnings upratings. We have certainly made clear our commitment to introducing an earnings uprating of the basic state pension. Our objective, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, is to do that in 2012, but we want to do it by the end of the next Parliament at the latest. We will make a statement on the precise date at the beginning of the next Parliament. I assure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that we will not lose interest in this issue just because the Bill is passing into its final stages. I look forward to having many discussions with him and his colleagues in the coming months and years about the various regulations and about the detail of issues such as qualifying earnings.
	As both hon. Gentlemen said, we have had discussions with the European Commission about bringing forward workplace personal pensions. We are well aware that the industry wants to proceed with automatic enrolment before the planned introduction of the duties from 2012, but the relationship between the employer duty and automatic enrolment makes it difficult to do that outside of bringing in the general scheme. However, we are keen to find ways of helping employers and providers to increase participation in personal pensions today and to make the transition from active joining to automatic enrolment, under the employer duty, as soon as possible. There will be many more discussions on this issue, but there will be firm encouragement for people to participate in the schemes.
	I hope to persuade the Opposition to withdraw their amendment. I hope also that the hon. Member for Rochdale will take note of the points that stakeholders have made on certification in what has been a constructive process. We have agreed to review the effectiveness of the certification procedure in 2017. As hon. Members have said, it is designed to make it easier for employers to cope with the new arrangements for workplace pension saving, using their existing provision. We hope that that will go some way towards reducing the risk of levelling down, but there is a possibility of certification leading to unintended consequences for the employer or employee. We must make sure that individuals do not routinely save at levels below those recommended by the Pensions Commission. Also, employers might become more inclined to use the quality standard without certification, thereby making the procedure redundant.
	It would be absurd for the House to rule out, at this stage, the possibility of removing certification if there were widespread consensus in 2017, through a review, that that needed to be done. It would not be appropriate then to have to wait for more primary legislation. I urge the Opposition to withdraw their amendment. There are good reasons why we have made the changes that their amendment would completely undermine.

Julie Kirkbride: Does not the Minister see that having that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads might make employers, especially rogue employers and those who are less keen to comply with what the Government want to do, more inclined to go for the lowest common denominator pension scheme?

Rosie Winterton: No, I do not think that is the case. The certification procedure has been agreed with stakeholders, and employers were keen on having it to reduce the burden on them, so I do not see why the possibility of it being removed would have that effect. This is about ensuring that people make the right contribution. I honestly believe that we should have the ability to remove certification if necessary.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords  amendments  Nos. 2 to 56 agreed to.
	After Clause 25
	 Lords amendment : No. 57.
	 Amendment proposed: (a) thereto —[Mr. Waterson.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Lords amendment No. 57 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 66 agreed to.

Clause 30
	 — 
	Effect of failure to comply

Lords amendment: No. 67.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 119, 121, 122, 124 to 132, 134, 135, 138, 156, 169, 201, 222, 235, 280 and 288.

Rosie Winterton: The Bill introduces an effective and proportionate compliance regime that is vital to the success of our reforms. The amendments strengthen the regime in several key areas, and respond to concerns raised earlier in the Bill's passage.
	Lords amendment No. 95 would enable the regulator to require employers to pay interest on unpaid contributions, which would help to ensure that members did not lose out because of contributions not made on time. In Committee in the House of Commons, concerns were expressed about a small minority of employers who might be tempted to try to induce their workers to opt out of scheme membership. Those concerns were shared by several stakeholders, such as the TUC, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Age Concern. Lords amendment No. 135 would prohibit such behaviour, while Lords amendment No. 132 allows the pensions ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to a jobholder opting out of a pension scheme.
	We have also closed two possible loopholes in the proposed criminal offence of wilful failure to comply. Lords amendments Nos. 112 and 113 introduce a criminal offence for individuals who may be responsible for such failure to comply within bodies corporate, unincorporated associations and partnerships.
	Lords amendments Nos. 105 and 108 make it clear that the effect of a notice issued by the regulator—for example, a compliance notice—will be suspended until any review of, or appeal against, the notice is completed. Lords amendment No. 201 gives the regulator greater flexibility to delegate the functions associated with the compliance regime, so that it can fulfil its new role in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
	The remaining Lords amendments were introduced for technical reasons, or to clarify drafting. For instance, Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 75 and 80 would ensure that the regulator could exercise his powers in relation to a jobholder's previous employers.
	The Bill sets out an effective regulatory regime to underpin the reforms. The Lords amendments have strengthened and improved that regime, ensuring the best possible level of protection and fair treatment for both workers and employers, and I commend them to the House.

Nigel Waterson: As the Minister said, the Lords have tabled a great many amendments to the compliance regime. Some are minor, but a number are fairly important. I pay tribute to Lord Skelmersdale and Lady Noakes, who did a good deal of hard work on many of them. Much of that work involved trying to dilute the Government's affection for introducing punitive measures in almost all areas if they think they can get away with it.
	Because much of the detailed work and the heavy lifting has already been done in the House of Lords, I intend—with no disrespect to their Lordships—to speak fairly briefly on this group of amendments. I think it fair to say that the issue of enforcement of compliance was always going to pose a substantial challenge to the legislation, particularly in regard to micro-employers. The new regime for personal accounts and auto-enrolment will apply to the fish and chip shop, the hairdresser and the small car workshop—in theory, they will all be subject to these provisions—and I suspect that the pensions regulator, to whom falls the task of enforcement across the board, will spend a disproportionate amount of his resources on pursuing many smaller employers rather than very large companies.
	There will clearly be a temptation, at the very least, for smaller employers to try to persuade their employees not to become involved in personal accounts. They might offer a larger Christmas bonus or a cash payment as a quid pro quo. If one thing emerges with crystal clearness from all the seminars, conferences and research of the past two or three years, it is the depth of financial illiteracy among many people in the country when it comes to how pensions work, how much they need to contribute and how much they will receive in retirement from a particular level of contributions. There will be a real risk of that ignorance being used against their best interests, especially in the case of small employers.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that the target audience for personal accounts consists of people in lower-paid work, who may well be working for small companies and have no existing pension provision. When I saw the Government's original proposals—here I refer particularly to Lords amendment No. 135—I was surprised to note that they originally had no intention of providing for an offence of inducement to opt out of personal accounts. I seem to remember raising the issue at one of those seminars some time ago—they all seem to blend into one another.
	The Minister is fortunate to come so fresh to the issue. I raised it because it seemed odd to leave it out if we were trying to achieve an holistic approach to how personal accounts would work and how employers and employees were going to comply with them.
	What makes it potentially a huge issue that might strike at the very foundation of personal accounts is the issue of the interaction with means-tested benefits. We all know of the excellent work carried out by the Pensions Policy Institute some time ago that identified certain at-risk groups: people who were at significant risk of either being no better off by being auto-enrolled into personal accounts or, in some cases, being worse off as a result, including people who had started saving later, or who were renting accommodation in retirement. For us, this has always been a huge concern. At the moment, 45 per cent. or so of pensioners retire subject to means-tested benefits, and that proportion will increase inexorably over the coming years if something is not done.
	Take-up is a massive issue. Yesterday the Government modestly increased pension credit, but that is no help at all to the 1.8 million or so people who are entitled to pension credit but never get round to claiming it. The Treasury's fundamental assumption when pension credit was introduced was that 1.4 million people would never get round to claiming it. There is a problem here that will not go away.
	When we raised the issue—insistently—earlier, Ministers were dismissive about what we had to say. Their basic attitude could be summed up as, "You're letting the side down, you're rocking the boat—the real prize in personal accounts is the millions of people who don't have any provision at the moment and will now start saving for their retirement." I do not disagree for a moment with that being the prize, but part of the price for that prize should not be an element of rough justice towards people in the at-risk groups who may well end up worse off because of the loss of means-tested benefits.
	Whoever is in power when the chickens come home to roost will certainly not want another mis-selling scandal, where a lot of people turn round to the Government of the day and say, "Well you auto-enrolled me into personal accounts, and as a result I'm worse off." For the official Opposition this has always been a potential deal breaker when it came to consensus.
	I am delighted, of course, that, after a lot of pressure from us, Ministers finally relented. This was two or three Secretaries of State ago; they come and they go. A process was started which has been ongoing, pulling together stakeholders and looking first at trying to identify the size of the problem and then at some of the possible solutions. The Pensim 2 model in the Department is used wherever possible, although it was not until fairly recently that that even took account of housing benefit, which makes such a huge difference to many in the at-risk groups.
	I am pleased that Ministers finally relented and that the process has been ongoing for some time now; I think what is billed as the final seminar is taking place next week. A report of some sort will then be produced; whether it will produce any solutions is, of course, another matter. It is certainly an exercise that needs to be conducted. For us it has always been clear that if this problem cannot be addressed, there is a real danger that personal accounts simply will not work. That is a debate for another day, but once we have the data and the conclusions of that exercise, what are the options in terms of trying to address the matter and reduce or eliminate the numbers of people in the at-risk groups?
	Why does it matter so much at the moment? At one point, Ministers were saying that this would not be a problem until 2020 or even later, when people would start to realise that personal accounts had not been a great thing into which to be auto-enrolled. I disagreed with that; I still do. In the run-up to 2012, if that is the start date of personal accounts, people will be writing stories in the press—particularly the financial press—about people who are worse of as a result of being auto-enrolled. Indeed, some have already been writing such stories. If those stories are written, the unscrupulous employer will use them to help to persuade employees in small firms, in particular, that they do not need to be involved with personal accounts.
	We know that there is a huge element of irrationality about people's approaches to pension provision—an unwillingness to engage with the real issues and what the best solution is for them in the long run. We could end up with the nightmare scenario whereby the wrong people allow themselves to be auto-enrolled and end up worse off or no better off as a result, and the wrong people are persuaded to opt out when it would be very much in their interests to join, particularly relatively young people in the work force. This is why the issue of inducement to opt out has always been, for us, very important.
	I have no quibble at all with this and related amendments; it is excellent that the matter has been addressed. There will now be an offence of inducement to opt out, which I imagine will be used sparingly by the regulator, but it is there, and it should be publicised as widely as possible. We are very supportive of the measure, and indeed of all the other improvements to the Bill, many of them to the credit of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Lords. Without further ado, I register our broad support for this group of amendments.

Paul Rowen: If auto-enrolment is the key to the success of the Bill, ensuring that there is proper compliance will determine whether it delivers what it promises. As the Minister said, the TUC, Age Concern and others expressed concerns about this issue, and the amendments deal with many of those concerns. We are talking about a vast number of employers. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, we are concerned not with the large companies who have personnel departments that are used to organising such things, but with the local hairdresser or chip shop owner. Ensuring that they are delivering, and that there is a regime in place to deal with that, is essential.
	Another question raised by the TUC was who would do the work on compliance. The pensions regulator is involved, but what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that it is adequately resourced? Has the Department given any thought yet to what additional resources it will need to carry out the compliance role? As well as the measures in the Bill dealing with compliance, what steps will she take in the run-up to 2012 to make sure that such small employers are aware of their obligations and that there is a range of training and materials available to support them in that role? Many of the employers who will be introducing personal pension schemes will not have experience of doing this in the past. That will be a vast change. I am disappointed that the need for face-to-face interviews for people over 50 was not accepted, because making people aware of the advice available to them and what they are entitled to is important.
	On Lords amendments Nos. 105 and 108, I am again grateful that the Government have listened and have taken notice of the other place's Constitution Committee, which I understand wrote to the Government in June expressing concern at the discretion afforded to the regulator, who could choose whether or not to suspend the effect of a notice while someone is seeking a review. Those two amendments are sensible. It is important to have clarity on this issue.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for their support for the amendments. The hon. Member for Rochdale raised a couple of points that I wish to address.
	The costs will depend on the detail of the operational design of the compliance regime, but officials at the regulator are developing cost estimates both for provision of the compliance regime by the regulator and for perhaps delegating or contracting out elements of the regime, which is permitted under the Pensions Act 2004. That will inform the regulator's decision about how to deliver the service.
	On the wider issue of funding, the pension regulator's extended role will clearly be central to the success of the reforms. We are committed to supporting the regulator in that. We have said that set-up costs for the compliance regime will be funded by way of grant in aid, and we are considering how ongoing compliance costs would be funded.
	It is important that we work with small employers to ensure they are aware of what their obligations will be, and the Government certainly intend to make sure that there is consistent and coherent information to support the introduction of the reforms by helping to raise awareness.
	I take on board the disappointment expressed on issues to do with personal advice to each individual. We want to make sure that the information that people need is targeted, so it is relevant to individual circumstances.
	I commend the amendments to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 138 agreed to [some with Special Entry] .

Clause 58
	 — 
	Power to establish a pension scheme

Lords amendment: No. 139.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 140 to 145, 147 to 149, Lords amendment No. 150 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 151, 236 to 240, 281 and 282.

Rosie Winterton: The Pensions Commission proposed the establishment of a low-cost, simple pension scheme for low to moderate earners currently without access to a pension. The creation of the personal accounts scheme will enable all employers to fulfil their new pension duties.
	Lords amendment No. 139 is an Opposition amendment that we have accepted. It establishes a duty on the Secretary of State to set up the pension scheme, rather than a power to do so. Associated minor and technical amendments Nos. 140 to 145 will ensure that the legislation works correctly and clearly. The delivery authority will establish the personal accounts scheme—a task of considerable complexity. Amendments Nos. 151 and 282 will allow the delivery authority to appoint as executive members individuals on secondment or loan from other organisations. That will enable the authority to recruit the best people—strong leaders with expertise and specialist skills in a variety of areas.
	Amendment No. 281 ensures that appropriate changes in relation to the personal accounts delivery authority are made to the Pensions Act 2007 once this Bill is enacted. The trustee corporation will be a sole corporate trustee, with initial appointments made by the Secretary of State in line with guidance on public appointments issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	Amendment No. 236 requires the Secretary of State to consult the chair of the trustee corporation prior to making any appointments to the corporation in the initial period. This was always the intention, but we listened to the Opposition's points, which is why we have introduced the amendment. Members of the trustee corporation will be public servants, and therefore subject to the time limits on tenure of office provided in the OCPA guidance. To that end, amendment No. 237 increases the maximum term of appointment from four to five years to align it with the guidance. Amendment No. 238 allows the corporation to delegate a function, within the scope of the order and rules, to any member of staff. This amendment ensures that the trustee corporation has flexibility within its remit in terms of staffing.
	Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 and 239 and 240 clarify that any loans provided by the Secretary of State to either the authority or the trustee corporation should at least cover the cost of Government borrowing. That firmly establishes in the Bill our intention that the funding for setting up and operating the scheme should be delivered at nil cost to taxpayers. The amendments will also ensure that any financial assistance that the Secretary of State might provide will be consistent with the general rules on Government lending.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has tabled an amendment to amendment No. 150 that would require loans to the delivery authority to be paid at commercial rates. We have been clear that we have no intention of unfairly subsidising the authority or the scheme. However, the scheme will be in the unique position of performing a public service obligation to accept all eligible employees irrespective of the cost of doing so. That will be essential in ensuring that everyone has a scheme into which they can be automatically enrolled. In the long term, the scheme's scale will enable it to act in that way while offering low charges to members, but in the short term it could add to the burdens of establishing the scheme. We will understand the issue more once the procurement process reveals the actual cost of establishing the scheme. However, before then we cannot accept an amendment that locks the scheme into a fixed period of repayment or to commercial loan rates without knowing whether that would undermine our aim of delivering a low-cost scheme available to all.
	We are committed to a review of some aspects of the personal account scheme in 2017, and amendment No. 147 places that requirement in the Bill. This will be an independent review of those features of the personal accounts scheme that are designed to focus it on the target market of moderate to low earners, specifically the annual contribution limit and the prohibition of pension fund transfers. Again, the Opposition made that proposal, and we have accepted it following debate.
	The majority of these amendments are minor, while others strengthen the Government's commitment to ensuring that more people are able to save for their retirement. With the exception of the Opposition amendment, which I think was tabled yesterday, I commend the amendments to the House.

Nigel Waterson: Again, the Minister is correct to say that a number of these Lords amendments are minor drafting and technical ones. I do not intend to bang on through every single one of them, but I wish to pick out the ones that are important from our perspective—in particular, our proposed amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 150.
	The Minister rightly said that Lords amendment No. 139 was an Opposition amendment, giving the Secretary of State the obligation, rather than just the power, to set up personal accounts. We are all slightly bemused as to why the Secretary of State wanted to give himself wriggle room in respect of not setting up personal accounts. Although there are arguments to be had on the architecture and design of those accounts, it seemed to us eccentric, to say the least, that there should not be such an obligation, and I am delighted that the amendment has been accepted by the Government.
	The next big issue for Conservatives concerns Lords amendment No. 150 and related amendments. They deal with the public subsidy or level playing field argument, which is familiar to those of us who were fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Public Bill Committee. As the Minister has said, the procurement process for personal accounts is still in its early stages. We are talking about a brand new design that will perhaps have to deal with 1 million employers and several million new employees, and will involve a major IT contract, leaving aside any other design considerations. It is perhaps an eccentricity of the procurement process that it will be part way through before the personal accounts delivery authority knows exactly how much it will all cost. There are clearly some i's to dot and some t's to cross, because the authority does not yet know, and will not know for some time, how much the scheme will cost, how many customers it will have and how many customers will be left after two or three months, when people who have been auto-enrolled suddenly realise that their pay packet is a bit light and head for the exit.
	In those circumstances, I concede that it is difficult for PADA to work out its costs, let alone its unit costs. It has always been our approach that this project should not attract any public subsidy, so that there is a proper level playing field between personal accounts—the new kid on the block—and existing provision. We are obsessed with the problem of potential levelling down. We do not see any reason for any provision in the legislation that would appear to give even the hint of an unfair advantage to personal accounts over existing and competing pension provision.
	Something that has crept into the ministerial rhetoric relatively recently—I do not remember it ever featuring in our debate in this Chamber or in Committee, although I am happy to be challenged on that—is the phrase "public service obligation". An attempt is being made to apply it to PADA and its successor, the trustee corporation. Of course, we are familiar with the concept of PSO, perhaps the best and most familiar example of which is the Royal Mail. The basis of its PSO, and therefore of the zillions of pounds that the organisation receives in public subsidy every year, is that I could post a letter today and the Royal Mail would guarantee to deliver it to the far north of Scotland or to anywhere else in the country quite soon; it would perhaps not nowadays be able to deliver my letter the next day. That is a true public service obligation. We do not think—my colleagues in the Lords made this abundantly clear—that there is any justification for applying that concept to PADA or the trustee corporation.
	That is, in part, the thrust of my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 150, which makes it clear that any loan should be repaid at a commercial rate over a period of 10 years. At different times in the debates, we have also tried to make it clear that there should be no basis on which PADA or its successor receive anything by way of grant or subsidy; they should not receive anything but a repayable commercial loan.
	The PSO justification or excuse is of recent vintage. No mention was made of possible subsidy in the Turner report, which is where this all started, or in the December 2006 White Paper. We are concerned not only about the possibility of unfair competition with existing provision, but about whether we are seeing the beginning of a worry on the part of those who are charged with making personal accounts work that they cannot deliver at 0.3 per cent.—that figure is no longer referred to by anybody—or even at 0.5 per cent. without significant subsidy.
	I imagine that the Minister would say in her defence that any such subsidy would have to pass the relevant EU rules on state aid, as may well be the case, but our view is that we do not want to go there at all. Her comments echo, almost uncannily, those of Lord McKenzie in the other place. He spoke about
	"the Government's intention that the personal accounts scheme will be self-financing in the long term, through charges on members, and delivered at nil cost to taxpayers."
	He went on to say:
	"One possible source of financing for these costs could be borrowing".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 343.]
	Even so, we are not happy with that as a possibility. Even at an early stage, the corporation will be pulling in significant contributions from its members. There is a clear consensus that personal accounts should wash their own face within a reasonable period, although there might be arguments as to how long that period will be. Crucially, it depends on the consultation, which recently ended, as to the charging structure for personal accounts; I can see that that might affect the period for repayment and so on. We are adamant that any such subventions should be made by way of a proper loan involving a period for repayment and a commercial rate of interest. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear that we reject the suggestion that the personal service obligation applies in this instance. As I said, there was never any suggestion, until recently, that it would apply to personal accounts.
	The other issue that I wish to discuss for a few minutes is Lords amendment No. 147 and related amendments to do with the review. It has been fairly clear almost from the outset in dealing with the legislation that Ministers were intending—as, indeed, they still are—to have a review of the operation of personal accounts five years after the start date. Of course, that prompts the question whether 2012 will be the start date. I understand that it remains the firm view of the Minister and of Mr. Tim Jones, the chief executive of PADA, that personal accounts will start in 2012. There is to be an element of the phasing in of personal accounts—we do not want a terminal 5 moment, so I suppose we will start with the short-haul flights and work our way upwards. Of course, that worked really well in the context of terminal 5.
	Lord McKenzie wrote a letter dated 6 November to my colleague, Lord Skelmersdale, in which he made the point about the review. He said:
	"We have publicly committed to review in 2017 two of our key measures designed to minimise the impact of the personal accounts scheme on the existing pensions market—the ban on transfers and contribution limits."
	He also makes the point that there will be a person appointed by the Secretary of State—I am not sure exactly what sort of "person" the Minister has in mind—who would prepare the report and have a duty to lay a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament. We do not have any problem with that, although I hope it is not churlish to say that if there is an election in 2010 and we are fortunate enough to win it, we will probably have a review then and there, just to see whether everything is going to plan.
	The review needs to be as wide as possible. I am pleased that it will look at ways of retaining a barrier between personal accounts and existing provision. We have always favoured putting the £3,600 annual contribution cap on the face of the Bill. We have never understood why Ministers, despite declaring that that was their firm intention, have always resisted putting it in the Bill. That is the policy, and we think that it should be applied. Equally, transfers in and out of personal accounts and lump sum payments in would not be permissible. That would be the case for all sorts of reasons, including not just helping to maintain existing provision, but helping Mr. Jones and his colleagues at PADA for whom simplicity is the key word in preparing for the start date in 2012.
	I hope that, as part of the review, a serious body of work will be carried out—it certainly will be if the Conservatives are in government—on the effects of personal accounts, even in their early days, on levelling down and on existing provision. I do not think that there will be a big bang effect immediately, but there may well be a period of attrition of existing provision in favour of personal accounts. For example, new employees joining a company may find that the existing scheme is closed to them and that they are pointed towards personal accounts. I hope that such a trend will not occur, but if it does, I hope that the Government of the day will take urgent action to deal with it.
	The massive issue of means-testing is being examined, as I suggested in an earlier debate, and we need to continue to examine it right up to the starting date for personal accounts. It should be monitored regularly. We are keen on a review. If it happens in 2017, as the Bill provides, so be it, but it may well come earlier, depending on the electoral cycle.
	Broadly speaking, we are content with the amendments, save that we have tabled amendment (a) to amendment No. 150.

Paul Rowen: I welcome the Minister's acceptance of Lords amendments Nos. 139 to 145. I certainly could not understand at the time why the Government could not commit themselves to using the word "shall" instead of "may" when it came to setting up a scheme. It would call into question what we had all been spending all this time doing if we were not going have a scheme in the end, so that is a sensible move by the Government. I also welcome the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 147, because in Committee we pressed for a review with a time frame. I am glad that that has been agreed.
	On amendment No. 150, we made it clear in Committee that conditions should be set down. However, unlike the Conservatives, we were not opposed to the Government making grants. Indeed, that has been done to enable the setting up of PADA, and we do not oppose it obtaining loans. The original wording in the Bill was that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance to the authority, which may or may not include interest. I am grateful that in the other place Lord McKenzie realised that PADA, as a public body, has a job to do in setting up a delivery authority before it hands over to a set of trustees. It will have to build up funds over several years. Therefore, it is proper that, if need be and subject to Treasury rules, it is given a loan to enable it to carry out that job. It is also proper that if that loan is to be repaid, it should be repaid under normal conditions for a public body. If the Minister wanted to transfer that arrangement to the trustees when the scheme was up and running, that would be a different matter, but given that PADA is a delivery authority, it is right and proper for the Government to be able to lend it money and for it to be paid back at normal public service rates.
	On that point, we disagree with the Conservatives and their amendment (a). PADA will be no different from the Post Office or other public body that carries out a public duty.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for their general welcome for these amendments.
	On the 2017 review, our commitment is to commission a review of just two of the features of personal accounts—the annual contribution limit and the prohibition of transfers to and from the scheme. We think that a focused review will be the most straightforward way to meet our commitments in those areas, focusing on the impact of the policies on employers, the pension industry and individual behaviour. The review would examine outcomes in the light of the wider debate on existing pension saving. However, it would be too early after 2012 to commit to a wider review of the reforms, given the phasing in of some features and the long-term nature of pension saving.
	With regard to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I stress again that we have no intention of unfairly advantaging the scheme, and we have not discounted the possibility of commercial rate loans. However, in the light of the unique task that we are giving the scheme, and ahead of knowing more about its costs through the procurement process, it is vital that we retain flexibility in how it is funded. Like any other scheme, personal accounts will be targeted on a particular segment of the market. The scheme will also have a public service obligation to accept all eligible employees, irrespective of whether they are loss-making to the scheme.
	In the long term, we are confident that the scheme can do that while delivering low costs to members and being self-financing, but in the short term those obligations will add to the challenge of establishing a low-cost scheme. If that is the case, it would be reasonable for the Government to consider whether it was in the public interest to compensate the scheme in some way for the burdens placed on it. Indeed, European state aid rules, whose explicit purpose is to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, recognise that there may be cases in which it is right to compensate a body for performing a public service obligation. These rules are very explicit: it is possible only for the state to recognise the cost of imposing a public service obligation, and it is not possible to go any further. In other words, it is only possible to ensure that the personal account scheme is not disadvantaged by its public service obligations. Therefore, not only do we not want to subsidise the scheme unfairly, but it would be illegal for us to do so. I hope that, with this reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree not to press his amendment.

Nigel Waterson: May I probe the Minister further? At what point did the Department decide that the scheme should have a public service obligation? It was not in Turner or in the White Paper, or even in this House. It must have been somewhere between this House and the other place.

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, in the ongoing discussions about the development of the scheme it has been important to ensure that we consider all aspects of the funding. However, as I have said, our view is that we should maintain flexibility in this matter and that is why we do not agree with amendment (a).
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 140 to 151 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 76
	 — 
	Stakeholder pension schemes

Lords amendment: No. 152.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 171 to 177, 200, Lords amendment No. 202 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendment No. 203 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 204 to 206, 215, 216, 219 to 221, 227, 232 to 234, 241 to 246, 279, 283, 284 and 287.

Rosie Winterton: The amendments in this group cover a wide range of issues relating to the state and private pension systems. First, on fuel poverty, amendments Nos. 204 and 219 allow the sharing of information about pension credit recipients with energy companies to help energy suppliers provide assistance to poorer pensioners. The regulations that will govern that sharing of information will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
	Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 and related amendments in the group will help those who were forced to flee Nazi Germany as children under the Kindertransport arrangements. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their tenacious efforts over many years to champion this worthwhile cause. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State championed the cause on behalf of his constituent, Hermann Hirschberger. The amendments remove a technicality of British insurance that could reduce or remove the German state pension of a Kindertransportee. It has not been easy to find a solution within UK legislation, but I am pleased that we have managed to do so.
	Amendment No. 202 and related amendments are designed to help people who face potential disadvantage because of gaps in their national insurance record. Their cause has been championed by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hollis and I pay tribute to her for all her work campaigning on the issue. I know that the cause has also been supported by a number of hon. Members in this House.
	The amendments mean that individuals who are eligible to purchase class 3 national insurance contributions will be able to buy up to six additional years for any tax years from 1975. The offer applies to those who reach state pension age between April 2008 and April 2015 and to those who have 20 qualifying years taking into account full years of home responsibilities protection. The amendments have been warmly welcomed by the many stakeholders who have taken an interest in the issue.
	As previously announced, and confirmed in the pre-Budget report, the price of class 3 national insurance contributions has been increased to ensure cost neutrality and to reflect the additional value of the contributions after the Government's pension reforms take effect in April 2010.

Steve Webb: The Minister mentioned that the price of class 3 has gone up from about £8 to about £12. Will she break down how much of that increase would have happened anyway as class 3 is now worth more because there are fewer qualifying years post-2010? How much of the increase is due to the revenue neutrality of the amendment? How much would the increase have been without Baroness Hollis's amendment and how much of it is because of that amendment?

Rosie Winterton: I am not entirely clear about how the division would occur. If I can find out further information, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. The two have been put together in order to meet the requirements of the Baroness Hollis amendment, if we can call it that, and the changes to which he referred.
	The proposals made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) would amend the Bill to permit a much larger group of pensioners to buy additional years. The costs of extending the rules by removing the 20-year de minimis for those reaching state pension age between April 2008 and 2015 would be at least £3 billion. If we were to take that back to 2004, the total cost would be about £5 billion. That cost would increase for every further year. The benefits gained by people living overseas with a limited connection to the UK would far outweigh the benefits to the women in the UK whom the hon. Gentleman is keen to help. That is why we cannot accept his amendments.
	The remaining measures in the group are designed to help simplify our complex pension system. Let me start with state second pensions. The Pensions Act 2007 introduced measures to replace an incredibly complex structure with a much simpler flat-rate amount. The Bill goes a step further and contains measures to simplify the past by consolidating accruals to state second pensions. Amendments Nos. 171 to 176 and 241 to 246 achieve that. They also smooth the consolidation when it applies to those who have been contracted out prior to 1997 and clarify the status of work the Government Actuary will undertake to achieve that simplification.
	Let me move on to contracted out pensions more generally. The Pensions Act 2007 contains provisions to abolish contracting out on a defined contribution basis and removes most of the rules concerning the use of protected rights already accrued at the point of abolition. Amendments Nos. 177, 215 and 284 complete that work by removing the survivor benefit rule so that once contracting out on a defined contribution basis ceases there will be no requirements on individuals regarding past protected rights.
	Amendments Nos. 152 and 279 remove unnecessary provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Amendment No. 200 corrects a technical error in the Pensions Act 2004. Finally, amendments Nos. 216, 234 and 287 relate to work in progress, in conjunction with the Law Commission, to consolidate private pension legislation.
	In summary, the amendments in the group support the Government's simplification agenda and, importantly, they also make the system fairer. I commend the amendments to the House.

Andrew Selous: I, too, join the Minister in welcoming the Kindertransport provisions, in particular, and pay tribute to the group of MPs whom she mentioned who were instrumental in bringing those provisions on to the statute book.
	I would like to concentrate on the so-called Baroness Hollis amendment. I also pay tribute to her and to the others who have campaigned on the issue. The amendment will make a welcome difference to a defined group of women who will be able to buy back an extra six years to improve their basic state pension—quite considerably in some cases.
	The Government tell us that the measure will be cost-neutral. As has been noted already, there will be an increase in the cost of the class 3 national insurance contribution to reflect the increasingly significant value of those contributions, given the reduced number of qualifying years needed for a full state pension. We understand from Lord McKenzie of Luton, the Minister's colleague in the other place, that around 110,000 people are expected to benefit from the package. So far, so good.
	I noted with interest that Lord McKenzie also pointed out that the true actuarial value of a week's class 3 national insurance contribution is around £45. It is worth making the point that, even though the cost has gone up from £8 last week to £12.05 now, that is still pretty good value for the whole category of men and women who will benefit. That does not include everyone, but the people who will benefit should look to take advantage of the offer.
	However, my attention was drawn to some comments on the proposals from Ros Altmann, who is a very respected commentator on pensions issues. Indeed, I believe that she is a former adviser to HM Treasury on pensions matters. For some of the time, she has perhaps been a thorn in this Government's side, but many people would say that she has done sterling service for pensioners generally.
	Ros Altmann welcomes the fact that the extra years can be bought back and points out that this is not just the women's pensions issue that it is sometimes called. It is important to put on the record that men who were carers or disabled will also be able to benefit. She points out that it is not a free offer: those pensioners or people about to come to pension age who wish to take it up will be paying slightly more for the privilege. However, she also says that the offer is aimed at a quite narrowly defined group of people—specifically, those who already have 20 years of national insurance contributions. Only they will be able to buy back the extra six years, so the offer emphatically does not apply to all women. I know that that is the subject of the amendments from the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), to which I shall come shortly. It is also worth making it clear that people who retired before April 2008 cannot buy any extra state pension entitlement at all. Any existing pensioners who retired before April 2008 who may think that this is good news need to know that it is not an offer for them.
	I have some questions for the Minister, and some of them were asked by my colleagues in the other place. I am not exactly clear what the answers are, so I would be grateful if she tried to address these points when she comes to reply. If she is not able to do that, perhaps she will write to me with the information, but I should be grateful for an answer if that is at all possible.
	First, I should like an assurance that the increased revenue that the Government will get from the increased cost of class 3 national insurance contributions will be no more than the extra payments made. I ask that because if, through the extra costs that they are charging pensioners, the Government gain more revenue than they pay out, this would be a revenue-raising measure. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is the Government's intention, but I should be grateful for some clarity that the extra revenue raised will be paid out.
	Secondly, have the Government made any estimate of how much pension credit may be saved as a result of these provisions? If they believe that there will be a reduction in pension credit, has the Department considered the possibility of incorrect targeting? I ask that because, of course, the group of people who would lose out on pension credit entitlement should not be the ones who take up the offer in this set of amendments.
	Thirdly, will the Minister give the House more information on the information campaign that the Department intends to launch on this matter? As has already been established, there are groups of people who clearly will benefit, and others who should not take advantage of the offer. We know that pensions already mystify a lot of people. It was suggested in the other place that the national insurance recording system could be looked at so that those identified by Pension Service officials as likely or certain to benefit from this offer—the 110,000 people to whom the Minister's colleague in the other place referred—could be written to.
	While I am on the subject of those 110,000 people, will the Minister confirm that that is indeed the figure? I noted that Baroness Hollis said in the other place on 29 October:
	"My Lords, something like 550,000 women could benefit"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1597.]
	Perhaps the Minister could also explain the difference between the figures of 550,000 and 110,000.
	Will the Minister tell the House who will run the information campaign? Is it intended to be the Pension Service, or will it be a joint campaign with Age Concern, Help the Aged and the other organisations with which the Department often works in partnership? These are important issues: if the offer is not to confuse people further, they will need help to understand what is a very complex area. Indeed, Ros Altmann has suggested that people should consult an independent financial adviser or go to a citizens advice bureau or the Pensions Advisory Service. She makes the point that it might be best for people to wait until just before retirement before they make a decision, as their situation is likely to be clearer then. She also sounds a warning note to those women who may qualify for a full pension by virtue of their husbands' contributions. That point needs to be borne in mind as well.
	I turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon. In my speech so far, I have alluded already to a number of his concerns, and specifically to the groups of people who are not covered by the offer. We need to be clear about that. I have looked at his proposals, and I understand where he is coming from. I have general sympathy for the point that he wants to flag up to the House, but the cost—between £3 billion and £5 billion—is pretty high, as the Minister has said already. We need to be clear about what new money would be raised through taxation or what expenditure would be forgone to meet that pretty substantial financial commitment. The Minister in the other place said that the price tag for what the hon. Gentleman was seeking was "very substantial" and, indeed, "unaffordable".
	I turn now to the issue of sharing data on pension credit details with energy companies. We in the official Opposition support data sharing, because we realise that many people in the country are greatly worried by the serious nature of their fuel bills. We want to do all we can. We want the Department to play its part in relieving fuel poverty, which will dominate many of our constituents' minds this winter in particular. We therefore welcome the move to ensure that the relevant vulnerable groups are able to benefit from the social tariffs that the energy companies are offering.
	However, the data sharing needs to be subject to two specific considerations. First, it must be done with the agreement of the pensioners concerned. The release of data about a pensioner or any other benefit recipient is the release of personal and private information, and all citizens should have a right to know that it will not be divulged to third parties without their express agreement.
	I noted with concern that in the other place, Lord McKenzie of Luton said about the agreement of pensioners to data sharing:
	"A potential opt-out is being considered and worked through".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 1393.]
	He was referring to an opt-out for pensioners who did not want their details to be passed on to the energy companies. The word "potential" worries me greatly. Can the Minister give us some clarity about that? Can she tell us in clear language that if a pensioner does not want their details passed on to an energy company, that will not happen?
	The second concern is hardly a surprising one. The official Opposition want to see robust safeguards to protect the security of the data that are transferred. There has sadly been a catalogue of lost Government data in recent years, going back to earlier this year when the child benefit data were lost. Sadly, we know from questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) that virtually every Government Department has lost often fairly significant amounts of personal data.
	I therefore again have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Can she give us some assurance that if data are on memory sticks and laptops they will not be taken out of DWP or energy company offices? That is how many leaks seem to arise. Can we have an assurance that the data will be encrypted so that if laptops or memory sticks are stolen or lost, at least there is some chance that it will not be possible to read the information? The Minister said that the matter would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Well, I and probably others in the House would like to see a bit of that full scrutiny now, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I would appreciate some answers now; I do not want to be told that the issues will be dealt with in regulations. The matter is before the whole House and it would be good to have some reassurances.
	I should like to ask the Minister about the pensioners and others whose data will not be passed on to the energy companies. I am a little confused about amendment No. 204 because it refers purely to passing on the details of those who are currently receiving pension credit. Yet in the other place reference was made to those receiving pension credit over the age of 70. Obviously there are pensioners under the age of 70 who are in receipt of pension credit, so why are they being left out? Does the Department have any plans to leave out that group of vulnerable pensioners, who feel the cold as much as those over 70?
	What about those who are entitled to pension credit but do not claim it? The Department has details of those people; it knows who they are. I know that it tries hard to contact them, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just told the House, about 1.8 million people who are entitled to it do not receive pension credit—roughly a third of all those who are entitled to it.
	More generally, what are the Department's longer-term plans in this area? Does it intend to extend data sharing to all those in fuel poverty or on other benefits? Is it the intention to offer a social tariff to those on specific benefits? If the intention is to tie the offer of a social tariff to those on a benefit, has the Department undertaken any research into benefit traps and work disincentives? If eligibility for a social tariff is withdrawn when someone gets into work, they may not want to start work until the winter is over because they would have to pay higher fuel bills.
	I have asked a number of questions on important issues. I apologise in advance to the Minister. I know that she is new to the Bill, but these important matters—eligibility, the Baroness Hollis issue and data sharing—are of great concern to all our constituents.

Paul Rowen: I pay tribute to those hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, who raised the issue of Kindertransport. I understand that it involves only 150 people, but it is important for them and it is good to see that an amendment will restore some of their rights.
	Like the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 228, which have been referred to as the Baroness Hollis amendments. They go a long way to right a considerable wrong. Lord McKenzie reckoned that there were 550,000 people in this category, 90 per cent. of whom were women. I welcome the fact that the amendments will allow individuals who reach state pension age between 6 April this year and 5 April 2015 to buy an additional six years of voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions, provided they already have 20 qualifying years on their national insurance record.
	At present a woman needs 39 years and a man needs 44 years of national insurance contributions to get the full state pension of £90.70. Clearly, the decision to lower that to 30 years for both is welcome; it will go a long way towards making sure that people get what they are entitled to. However, some anomalies remain. For example, if a woman retires before 2010 and buys the six additional years, that will restore only 2.5 per cent. of her weekly pension per year she buys back, while those who retire after that date will get back 3.3 per cent.
	The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) is on a different issue, but the differential between those who will retire up to 2010 and those who will retire after 2010 seems to be yet another anomaly that has been built into the system. I suppose that when it is advantageous or disadvantageous to retire is a decision that bedevils the whole issue of pensions and pension credit. I hope that the Minister will look into it; it is important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon will raise the issues that he has raised previously with further buy-backs. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that it would help if we knew what publicity programme the Department was planning on buy-back. As we said when we talked about personal accounts, it is important that people have information if they are going to spend money and then end up slightly worse off or only slightly better off. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that a proper process will be in place and that Citizens Advice or Age Concern, for example, will support people by providing that advice. She said that the scheme will be cost-neutral for the Government. The worst that could happen would be for a woman to enter into the arrangement and find that she is worse off.
	Amendments Nos. 204 and 220 deal with data sharing. Again, I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the person involved agreeing to their data being shared. That needs to be made explicit before the data are handed over. We have issues about data sharing and data loss, not least within the Minister's Department. Before we start handing out more data, we need to be clear what arrangements will be put in place. We also need the energy companies to enter into an agreement or code on how that data will be used.
	The other issue, which has moved on a bit since the amendments were debated in the Lords, is that the Government have set in train a system of support for people with regard to energy and energy saving, although my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon says that it is complicated. It is restricted to people who receive pension credits. I wonder whether the Department should consider making the system available to a range of other people. I am sure all hon. Members want that support to be given widely because of the steep rises in energy bills that people have been experiencing in the past 12 months. If we are going to share data with energy companies, there is a wider issue to consider of what other data should be shared. If someone is disabled or on a particular benefit, we should ensure that consent is given.
	I hope that the Minister can respond to those points. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. We are in complete sympathy with the issue that he wishes to raise, but it is difficult to support something when we do not have the full costs. Perhaps the Minister could write to us with more information on how she has arrived at the figures. I understand that my hon. Friend tabled questions but did not receive the figures until today. Whether we should go further might be a debate for another day, but it would help us to have the basis on which the Minister arrived at the figures.

Steve Webb: As you might expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to confine my remarks to amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 202 and the Northern Ireland equivalent, amendment No. 203, respectively.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) says, it would be irresponsible to table an amendment with a view perhaps to dividing the House without having an idea of the costs. On 30 October I tabled a written parliamentary question for named day answer on 4 November asking what the cost of the amendments would be. As of lunchtime today, I had received no response. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the Minister was able to give the figure, as I asked for it a month ago and have not been given it. I had to table my amendments last week in ignorance, which is unsatisfactory. I hope that she accepts that.
	I understood the Minister to say that the £3 billion—a large sum of money—relates to the relaxation of the 20-year rule. I do not know whether she has a separate figure for amendment (a). I will be happy to take an intervention at any point if she wants to clarify that.
	Some issues of principle are at stake. The Government accepted Baroness Hollis's amendments, and I pay tribute to her for her work. We are talking about a very restricted group of, generally, women. Many hon. Members will have heard the press coverage and thought, "Something very dramatic is going on. Lots of women will be entitled to buy back years." The impression given was that the changes were given extensive coverage, but there was no mention on the day of the fact that the cost of class 3 was going up by about 50 per cent. Mysteriously, that fact never entered the discussion. As it turns out, it is not an unreasonable charge for the benefit that has been given, as the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, but it would have been nice to have had a more balanced account of what was being done. Instead, we got the jam rather than the slight sting in the tail.
	The package restricts the concessions to a narrow group and is of nil cost to the Exchequer. The amendments are probing. I want to know whether the Government will look again at the restrictions that they have applied, even if not to the extent that I propose. The first restriction is that women who have reached pension age by April this year, or will do so over the next few years, can buy back, but the die is cast for those who are 61, 62 or 63, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	Having said that, in the unlikely event that anyone follows our proceedings, I would like to put on the record a brief commercial for the scheme whereby women who have already retired can still buy back. Women born between April 1938 and October 1944 can buy back missing years from 1967 to 2001-02 under the reinstatement of deficiency notice project. The deadline for some women is next March; for others, it is the year after. There is still a chance for women to buy back if they do not fall within the scope of the Lords amendments. I hope that as many women as possible will do that—and continue to send me commission as they do so.
	The year 2008 is inevitably an arbitrary cut-off. Many women who retired a few years earlier with incomplete pensions feel aggrieved by that and write to me in large numbers. I am sure that they write to the Minister as well. Baroness Hollis said:
	"I would like this to go further. Ideally, it would be back-dated for older women who had already reached state pension age."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1590.]
	My suggestion is very much in the spirit of what the Baroness was trying to do. It is entirely consistent with that.
	Amendment (a) refers to 1978, which essentially means pretty much all retired women, which may be overdoing it, but I hope that the Government will over time look at the issue again. It is in the spirit of what used to be called new Labour—I do not know whether that exists any more. It is very much in the spirit of something for something. We are not asking for charity or a freebie. The women have incomplete records. Why? Generally because they have spent time in low-paid, part-time jobs not earning enough money, perhaps while bringing up a family. There is a raft of perfectly good reasons why women may not have complete pension records. To penalise them by saying that they cannot even now put money back into the system because it is too late—their chance has gone—is unfair.
	The reason women in their early 60s and beyond are getting incomplete pensions is by and large because of pension rules written in the 1940s, yet we still apply that model and women are suffering today because of it. It is anachronistic and we could extend the scope of the arrangement. As it is, what we will have is essentially a two-tier retired population. Women who hit 60 now or over the next few years will potentially get a much more generous deal. Women who are now 61, 62 or 63 will for ever be the poor relative. That simply seems unfair.
	The Minister said, "Ah well, but many of them are living overseas." Good luck to them! I am astonished that the Government's basis for not accepting an amendment that allows women to put money into the system and get something back out of it is that they do not live here any more. They paid all their contributions when they lived here. Why should they not choose where to live? They should not be discriminated against because they have chosen to go and live somewhere else. I was not aware that that was culpable morally in the Government's eyes, but perhaps it is. We should extend the scope of the arrangement, perhaps not back as far as 1978, but to an interim period.
	The second amendment, amendment (b), notes that we are going to restrict the concession to people who have already put 20 years or more into the scheme, and, again, I find that very odd. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire will be familiar with the biblical verse:
	"To those who already have, more will be given."
	I had not realised that it was Government policy, but it seems to be now. If one already has at least two thirds of a pension, because once the minimum period is 30 years, anyone with 20 years will get at least two thirds of a pension, and potentially much more, one will be able to pay more in; but the women who have put in 19, 18, 17 years or less, and are already scrimping and getting by on wholly inadequate pensions, will not be able to. The women who have already put in 20 years or more are, on average, more likely to be able to afford the extra years, but it will be a struggle for the women on smaller pensions. There will not be hordes of them, and I am astonished at the cost, because it will depend on take-up. Given how complicated the whole process is, I should be astonished if there was take-up on the scale that has been described, but those women are surely the priority, so why have the Government prioritised women with bigger pensions over those with smaller pensions? It seems to be entirely the wrong way round, and I hope that the Minister will explain the logic, if logic be the right word for the provision.
	The women who suffer most through the pension system are those who have put in, perhaps, eight or nine years, and do not get any pension at all because they have not satisfied the 25 per cent. rule. It would be good if those women were able to benefit most by being able to make extra contributions and, actually, to receive a pension. Some of them do not, and they are precluded.
	I was rather startled by Lord McKenzie's comments on the matter, because, on the reason for 20 years, he said:
	"That enables us to target help to those who have already made a significant contribution and are genuinely seeking to plug small gaps in their records."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1589.]
	What is not genuine about the woman with 15 years of contributions? In what sense is that not a genuine attempt to plug a gap, albeit not a small one? The crucial point is that many women have gaps in their records, but they have not spent their time backpacking around Australia, as I think someone mentioned. The odd one may have, but Government policy should not be framed around the assumption that women with incomplete pensions are backpackers. They, like anyone else, simply want to put in their own money and get something back for it. Something for something seems to me to be a good basis for Government policy.
	By tabling these amendments, I have been able to get an answer to my parliamentary question, which I could not get by tabling a parliamentary question. We therefore now have an idea about the cost, and it is clearly very large. I shall not pursue my amendment, but I urge the Government both to look again at the very tight and restrictive way in which they have drawn the other amendments, and to think about whether something more generous might have been considered.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for their support on the Kindertransport amendments. I shall try to deal very quickly with the points that have been made, but if anything is left out, I shall write to hon. Members.
	On the issue of data security, we will ensure that the sharing of data will be in compliance with existing safeguards and will follow statutory and best practice guidance.  [ Interruption. ] So, that's okay, isn't it? Clause 136 allows regulation-making powers to strengthen the legal safeguards of data that are shared by the Government and energy suppliers by creating a new offence for anyone who unlawfully discloses data. On the question of whether the Government will supply all details of pensioners to those private companies, our plans for data sharing involve sharing a minimum amount of data, and that is simply required to confirm that pensioners are in receipt of pension credit. Obviously, the aim is to ensure that energy suppliers are able to provide assistance directly to poorer pensioners, but we will ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, including in respect of the opt-out. Legal safeguards are already in place through the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, meaning that access is restricted to the minimum amount of information that is necessary for the purpose. We are looking at ways to address the concerns of pensioners who want to opt out of the process, and we will keep the Opposition informed about that.
	On Baroness Hollis's amendment and the question of writing to people who could benefit, we will work with colleagues at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs over the coming months to consider the best way of publicising the scheme. We can also do things with, perhaps, Age Concern, Help the Aged and so on, and I know that Baroness Hollis has been looking at some of those issues.
	The difference between the figures of 110,000 and 550,000 relates to the people who might be eligible to make an application, and the people whom we feel would benefit from making a claim. We arrived at the take-up figure of 20 per cent. based on previous exercises.
	On the issue of increased costs and pension credit, overall, as I have previously said, the package was cost-neutral and the costs were net of income-related benefits, including pension credit. Returning to data sharing, I should say that the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group advocated such data sharing, and we will work with organisations to ensure that we get it right.

Andrew Selous: I am still a little confused about the difference between the figures of 550,000 and 110,000. If I understood the Minister correctly, she said that she thought that the take-up would be 20 per cent. of the 550,000 people who could benefit. I am a little bit concerned about that, because she would miss out a group of 400,000-plus people, whom I think she says could benefit, but, it seems, will be left out.

Rosie Winterton: It was a reference to the fact that some people could be eligible for the six-year extension, but it may not be considered to be in all their interests. We arrived at the 20 per cent. figure based on that and on previous exercises. Obviously, it is for individuals to decide whether they feel that they would benefit, but we estimate that we will end up with a figure of about 20 per cent.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) feels that his parliamentary question has not been answered, and I shall have another look at it. I asked officials to look today at the £3 billion and £2 billion issue in order to respond to his points. However, it is very difficult to go back—right back—to 1978 and calculate the increased costs. In effect, we have given the minimum estimated cost, going back only to 2004. If we went back a further period, as I think his question asked us to, the cost would, indeed, be higher. I shall try to get as accurate a figure as I can, but I wanted to give him a minimum figure this evening.
	In view of the time, I shall not reiterate my previous arguments. I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, but we estimate that the cost of accepting his amendment would be at least £5 billion, and we want to target help where it is most needed. Our amendments have been widely welcomed, so I am afraid that I must reject his amendment and commend the others to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 153 to 177 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 93
	 — 
	Activation of pension compensation sharing

Lords amendment: No. 178.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 199, 217, 218, 224 to 226, 231, 247 to 278, 285, 286 and 289.

Rosie Winterton: As we are in the final stage of the debate, I should like briefly to thank my officials in the Department for all the hard work that they have put into the Bill. They have tried to maintain an open dialogue with members of the Opposition and stakeholders, and I pay tribute to their extremely hard work. They have supported not only us in this House, but my noble Friend Lord McKenzie in the other place.
	This final group of amendments has been introduced to strengthen the operation of the Pension Protection Fund, the financial assistance scheme and the pensions regulator. Amendments Nos. 178 to 187 and related amendments make sure that the provisions relating to the sharing of compensation on divorce, dissolution of a civil partnership or annulment work correctly. Amendments Nos. 188, 192 and 193 ensure that the Pension Protection Fund can recover costs when dealing with sharing orders.
	Amendment No. 260 and related amendments follow from an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow)—that of lump-sum payments of PPF compensation for the terminally ill. That was an important campaign, and I thank my hon. Friends for what they have achieved. Amendment No. 260 would allow members with future rights to PPF compensation who have a progressive disease, from which their death may reasonably be expected in the following six months, to access a lump sum equal to two years' worth of the compensation that they could expect on reaching their normal retirement age.
	I turn to the financial assistance scheme. Amendments Nos. 194, 196 and 217 seek to allow schemes that were not previously eligible—particularly small schemes such as that operated by Desmond and Sons—to qualify for the FAS. Government amendments Nos. 194, 196 and 217 would enable us to bring forward regulations to allow those schemes into the FAS by making exceptions to the current requirement that pension schemes must have started to wind up before 6 April 2005 to qualify for the FAS. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has done a lot of campaigning on behalf of his constituents who worked for Desmond and Sons.
	This group also contains a number of technical amendments that allow us to protect scheme assets, for example. Amendment No. 278 relates to the anti-avoidance powers of the pensions regulator. Hon. Members will be aware that earlier this year, the Government consulted on proposals to make proportionate changes to those powers, to deal with new risks that have emerged in the market. Subsequently, the Government tabled amendments that would include a new alternative test for the regulator's power to issue contribution notices.
	Our stakeholders, including the CBI, the British Venture Capital Association and the National Association of Pension Funds, agree that we have made enormous progress in developing this legislation through the amendments in this group, striking the right balance between protecting members' benefits and minimising the impact on routine business. In summary, all the amendments are designed to help the PPF, the FAS and the regulator function effectively and continue to build confidence in pensions. I commend the amendments to the House.

Nigel Waterson: I shall try to tailor my remarks, because although this is an important group of amendments, which deals with some important issues, we are subject to time constraints—which, of course, were imposed by the Government.
	I join the Minister in thanking everybody who made going through this process such a huge amount of fun. There is no physical similarity, but the Minister slightly reminds me of Marshal Blücher arriving in the early evening of the battle of Waterloo, just in time to bayonet the wounded. The Minister has arrived in the nick of time and is here to take the victory parade, as it were.
	Lords amendment No. 198 and related amendments are about the important issue of buy-outs. It is hugely important to get that issue right. Initially, I am afraid, the Government got it horribly wrong. Our position has always been clear: yes, the business models for buy-outs of pension funds have run ahead of the legislation and the regulation, so something needed to be done. However, we did not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For some people in some pension funds, a properly regulated and financed buy-out would give an element of security that they would not otherwise have—and, incidentally, would allow the sponsoring company to get on with its core business instead of spending all its time worrying about running the pension fund. That is our position, and we have never wavered from it.
	Initially, when the Minister's predecessor approached me about the potential concerns about the issue, I said that we were happy to give our general support, subject to seeing the detailed legislation. The then Minister made a statement in April about his intentions, thereby stopping any unsuitable deals in their tracks. With the permission of the Attorney-General, he made it clear that the provision would be retrospective, and we had no difficulty with that.
	We parted company with the Government when they introduced in the Lords a wide regulation-making power to deal with the issue, without putting any detail in the Bill. That caused huge debates in the House of Lords. The Government forced it through before the summer. However, I am pleased to say that during the summer, wisdom prevailed; organisations such as the CBI, the British Venture Capital Association and others made it clear that if the Government were not careful, and overdid things, they could jeopardise genuine turnaround situations and legitimate business models that give the security to which I referred earlier.
	In the event, that argument was won; the Government staged a more or less graceful climbdown. Huge thanks must go to my colleagues Lord Skelmersdale and Baroness Noakes in the Lords. The Government tabled a series of detailed amendments for discussion and debate, including more sensible defences, a new alternative test for the use of the contribution notice power, a list of factors to guide the regulator and a code of practice. The proof of that particular pudding will be very much in the eating, but we have now reached a more sensible solution to a problem that was perhaps being overstated. Now we may have the powers just about right; I hope that they will be used with considerable discretion, care and caution.
	I am not saying that the pensions regulator is like the police, who always want more powers, but we need to be careful about simply giving more and more powers to the regulator if that is likely to upset the delicate balance in situations where a rescue could be staged, and if it is likely to tip companies that could have been rescued, along with their pension schemes, into the arms of the PPF. Now we have the "reasonably foreseeable" test and other details that are broadly satisfactory. In its brief for this debate, the CBI said that it
	"worked with government to develop effective, targeted powers sought by the Pensions Regulator to properly regulate non-insured pensions buy-outs, while having a limited effect on the normal course of business for the vast majority of employers that sponsor a defined benefit scheme."
	That is absolutely right; indeed, the business models may well change further over time and it is important that we keep monitoring them as they do.
	Let me refer briefly to amendment No. 256. The lump sum from the PPF for progressive illness when death is likely within six months is an important provision. Amendment No. 194 and others concern the financial assistance scheme. I will not dwell on the long and painful process of getting the Government to face up to their responsibilities following the ombudsman's report, but we welcome the extension of the FAS to schemes that were previously excluded.
	Another point about the FAS as regards payments for those with illnesses concerns the test being applied to people expected to die within five years. The ubiquitous Dr. Ros Altmann points out:
	"By definition, if some have an 80 per cent. chance of living beyond 5 years, then 20 per cent. of them may well die in less than that time"
	and therefore be excluded from assistance. She argues for more discretion. I hope that the Government will have another look at that in the light of the representations made by Dr. Altmann and no doubt others.
	These will be my valedictory few sentences on this Bill. On amendment No. 197, I pay tribute to Lord Fowler, who spoke very clearly on the issue of annuitisation. Our position is well known. We do not see why we should be the only country on the face of the planet that has compulsory annuitisation. This week at the ABI conference, I was heartened that Otto Thoreson made supportive remarks about scrapping compulsory annuitisation. We recently urged the Government at least to loosen the rules temporarily during the turmoil in the markets, but they were unwilling to do so. In the long term, this must be addressed, and if this Government will not do so, then we will.

Paul Rowen: I, too, thank the officials at the DWP, who have supplied us with a lot of helpful information.
	I should like to concentrate on three aspects of the amendments. We welcome amendments Nos. 194, 195, 196, 197 and 217, which bring schemes that fall outside the financial assistance scheme and the pension compensation scheme into the FAS. There are probably only a small number of people who were employees where an employer was experiencing insolvency after 6 April 2005 but delayed winding up. We are glad that that provision has been inserted into the Bill.
	We welcome the amendment that allows payments to people who are terminally ill—that is very sensible. We welcome the series of amendments that deal with divorce where one party is a member of more than one scheme, which mean that the courts will be able to make share orders relating to each individual scheme. Those are sensible provisions. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, no doubt Ros Altmann will continue to have a lot more to say about this.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, we are disappointed with the Government's stance on annuitisation. That will be a debate for another day, because the issue is not going to go away.

Rosie Winterton: I would like to take this opportunity to thank parliamentary counsel for all the work that they have done on the Bill. I understand that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) once feared "death by seminar". I hope that he has not felt that tonight's debate was "death by amendment". However, the number of amendments before us, although large, reflected the approach of consensual policy reform. I hope that we will continue in that vein and achieve that consensus in order to effect positive change to transform the British savings system for the future.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 289 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Standing Orders (Select Committees)

[Relevant document: The Fifth Special Report of the Liaison Committee, HC 1110, on Modernisation  of Language in Standing Orders relating to Select Committees .]

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders-
	(1) In Standing Order No. 125, line 2, leave out 'the examination of witnesses' and insert 'oral evidence sessions'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 128, line 5, leave out 'minutes of the proceedings' and insert 'formal minutes'.
	(3) In Standing Order No. 129,(a) line 1, leave out 'minutes of the proceedings' and insert 'formal minutes', and(b) line 2, leave out 'laid on the Table of' and insert 'reported to'.
	(4) In Standing Order No. 130, line 2, leave out 'minutes of' and insert 'record of the'.
	(5) In Standing Order No. 131, line 2, leave out 'under examination'.
	(6) In Standing Order No. 133, line 3, leave out 'minutes of the'.
	(7) In Standing Order No. 135, line 5, leave out 'memoranda of evidence' and insert 'written evidence'.
	(8) In Standing Order No. 137,(a) line 4, leave out 'minutes of proceedings' and insert 'formal minutes',(b) line 5, leave out 'minutes of', and(c) line 12, leave out 'laid upon the Table' and insert 'reported'.
	(9) In Standing Order No. 139, line 34, leave out 'minutes of their proceedings' and insert 'its formal minutes'.
	(10) In Standing Order No. 143, line 62, leave out 'minutes of'.
	(11) In Standing Order No. 145, line 35, leave out 'minutes of'.
	(12) In Standing Order No. 146, line 27, leave out 'minutes of'.
	(13) In Standing Order No. 152,(a) line 21, leave out 'minutes of',(b) line 22, leave out 'to lay upon the Table of the House the minutes of the proceedings' and insert 'the formal minutes', and(c) line 28, leave out 'minutes of their proceedings' and insert 'their formal minutes'.
	(14) In Standing Order No. 152A, line 26, leave out 'minutes of'.
	I rise to speak to the motion standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House relating to Standing Orders on Select Committees. I do not intend to delay the House for longer than I strictly need to. I always hesitate to say that things are not controversial, because they then often suddenly turn out to be controversial after all. However, these changes to Standing Orders are not controversial. They merely change the wording in various of our Standing Orders so as to catch up with the practice of the House that is already in operation. They have come from the Liaison Committee. I think that there is full agreement across the House that we should be making them, not least because the way in which we publish Votes and Proceedings will change when the new Session begins. It is therefore important that these changes go through swiftly.

Theresa May: Likewise, I will not detain the House for very long. I am tempted to say to the Deputy Leader of the House that he can breathe a sigh of relief, because the usual suspects are not in the Chamber.  [ Interruption . ] "Not yet," says the Government Deputy Chief Whip.
	It obviously makes sense to ensure that the language in which our Standing Orders are written is understandable to those outside who may wish to look at them. It is important to make everything that we do here in Parliament more accessible to people, and this is part of that. As the hon. Gentleman says, these proposals have come from the Liaison Committee. I do not intend to detain him by saying that it is a great pity we are not making further amendments to the Standing Orders governing the European Scrutiny Committee; that would be to reopen a debate that we have already had. I welcome the proposals.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Committees Meeting Concurrently

Ordered,
	That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:
	(1) No. 124 (Quorum of select committees):
	Line 6, leave out from 'concurrently' to Standing' in line 7 and insert 'pursuant to sub-paragraphs (1)(b) or (1)(ba) of'.
	(2) No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees)
	Line 14, at end insert the following sub-paragraph-
	'(ba) to agree with any other select committee or sub-committee of this House on the exercise of any power which each of those committees, or sub-committees may separately have to appoint specialist advisers, to authorise witnesses to publish written evidence submitted by them, or to adjourn from place to place;'  —[Chris Bryant.]

Welsh Grand Committee

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the matter of Public Expenditure in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 17th December at Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and half-past Four o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) and to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(3) this Order shall be a temporary Standing Order of the House. —[Chris Bryant.]

MR. JOHN HAASE AND MR. PAUL BENNETT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Barbara Keeley.]

Peter Kilfoyle: It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be in the Chamber under your strict invigilation. I know that you will make sure that we stick to the subject in this aptly timed debate, as it has turned out. It is a rather arcane subject for most people, but it is certainly on the record, because I bob up every few years to have a debate on it.
	I am extremely pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—my neighbour and a fellow Liverpool MP—is to answer on behalf of the Government. She not only knows about the kind of environment to which I will refer, but has been a practising lawyer in the city of Liverpool and is therefore well versed in some of the nuances of the characters who play a role in this saga.
	Back in 1996, when the then Home Secretary set free two vicious career criminals just 11 months after they were sentenced to 18 years in prison for drugs offences, considerable concern was expressed—not just in the city of Liverpool, I hasten to add, but in this place. Indeed, I remember one hon. Member, now Lord Carlile, demanding a statement from the then Home Secretary. I mention Lord Carlile in particular because some years later, as a barrister, he defended one of the two principals in this case, John Haase. As I say, Lord Carlile was not the only person to express concern, and neither was I; there were many others, including many hon. Members, journalists and people in the city of Liverpool who knew that something was radically wrong if two such vicious individuals could be allowed the sort of remission that they had obviously been given.
	Let us note that their release, when it came, was at the fag end of the parliamentary Session, as Members went off on summer recess, going away on holiday or whatever. When I discovered that John Haase and Paul Bennett had been released, I was at home in Liverpool. In fact, I was about to leave my home to go on Sky TV to excoriate the Government of the day for releasing these people when I received a telephone call from the then Home Secretary in which he advised me not to do the interview. He told me that if I did so, the two people in question—the two informants, as they came to be known—would have their lives put at risk. That may seem an irrelevant argument from 12 years ago, but it came to have a strong bearing on what happened just a few weeks ago.
	Obviously, I took the then Home Secretary at his word. Although I was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time, I deferred to the privileged information that the Home Secretary of the day had. As a precautionary measure, I rang up the shadow Home Secretary, who at that time was of course my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I told him what had transpired because I thought it remarkable; I just wanted to put it on the record. As the summer wore on, and I heard more reports, I became more and more concerned about the release, to put it mildly. If the lives of the two individuals—Haase and Bennett—were at risk, they were oblivious to it. They were back on the streets practising their criminal arts, and they were involved in a whole range of criminal activities. Eventually, in 2001, Haase went back into prison on gun, money laundering and drugs charges. His partner in crime and nephew, Paul Bennett, went on the run, and it was not until relatively recently that we were able to locate him and get him back.
	A campaign started at that time that brought us to today's debate, 12 years later. The reason why is simple: on 19 November, John Haase received 22 years, and Paul Bennett 20 years, for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice—the very charge that I first brought to the attention of this House on 7 March 2001, and which I repeated in a debate on 21 May 2004. It was blindingly obvious to me what had happened, but it seemed as though various agencies of the state did not recognise what was obvious. I have to exempt some individuals from that. Some people in various agencies were equally concerned, but the agencies themselves seemed almost powerless to do anything about the situation.
	The truth was that the agencies did not want to do anything about the situation because it was a tremendous embarrassment to them. Not only was it an embarrassment to them, but what had happened in the course of the conspiracy meant that everyone was a winner. The police were winners because they took huge numbers guns off the streets of Liverpool. The customs were winners because they were lifting up to 50 kg of heroin at a time, and they were disrupting the supply rings feeding the heroin trade in the UK. They were winners. It turns out that the Prison Service seemed to be a winner, because it discovered a gun in Strangeways prison thanks to information conveyed by Haase. Everybody seemed to be a winner. Of course, that was not true: the criminal justice system was a tremendous loser because of what was going on.
	I brought the matter to the attention of not only the House, but various Ministers. I brought it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn when he was Home Secretary and nothing happened. I took it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he was Home Secretary, and nothing happened. It would be remiss of me not to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and his then junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), because when I took it to them, I am happy to say that some action did follow. That action gave me an opportunity, but it would not have happened except for their intervention.
	I felt that many hours and years of personal effort were being wasted as I spoke to Minister after Minister. I tabled questions, had debates, parlayed with journalists and tabled early-day motions—all apparently to no avail. But it was not to no avail, in fact. I was building up a body of evidence, ably assisted by an investigative journalist supreme, Graham Johnson, and I built up a case that was irrefutable, as we found when we got the police involved.
	To return to the Clarke-Goggins regime in the Home Office, however, the opportunity that they gave me was simple. If I could prove a prima facie case to the chief inspector of constabulary, the issue would be revisited. I am happy to say that the chief inspector agreed that there was a prima facie case, and as a result, Operation Ainstable was launched. It was set up within the Metropolitan police in order that the matter could be thoroughly investigated by someone outside the original investigation, in my view.
	It would be wrong of me not to mention what an excellent team was put together for Operation Ainstable. It was ably led by Dave Johnstone and Graham McNulty. The members of the team did a thoroughly professional job. They covered a complex history with extremely dated records. Nevertheless, the application, experience and knowledge of those members of the Operation Ainstable team shone through. As the process went on and on, their work made an ultimate conviction inevitable.
	Why then, one might ask, am I back in the Chamber tonight? Why am I not happy that these two career criminals are where they belong—banged up in a category A prison? It is because that is only part of the story. A much fuller explanation is owed to Members of this House and to the public as to how such a corruption of the criminal justice system could take place. I know that the two principals have received heavy sentences, and I know that the initial travesty of their release has been corrected, but all the other questions must be answered by someone at some stage. I shall give the House a couple of examples.
	It is staggering to me that between 1992 and 1996, the royal prerogative was exercised in 176 different cases. These proceedings take place behind closed doors; we do not even know that they are happening. What brought the Haase-Bennett case to my attention, and through me to the attention of those who also became concerned—it is whereby we ultimately got these convictions—was their arrogance. They were so arrogant, they thought that they could swagger around the streets of Liverpool at their old trade and nobody would notice, or at least nobody would get at them. If they had done what the judge in the original trial believed they were going to do, which was to change their identities and go to South America, nobody would have known what had happened. Nobody would have had a clue, and I wonder in how many other cases that remains so because of the secrecy that obtains in the exercise of the royal prerogative.
	I should point out that the figures I mentioned covered the period from 1992 to 1996, and they dropped between 1997 and 1999. But the process started again, involving five prisoners between 2000 and 2002. Those are not the huge figures of earlier years, but we are still oblivious as to what is going on with regard to the exercise of that prerogative. We do not know what conditions are laid down or what deals are being done. In such cases, we are often talking about supergrasses. The supergrasses are well versed in subverting the system for their own ends.
	That corruption of the system has happened before and it will happen again. There was a famous case back in 1979 in which Judge Michael Argyle attacked the supergrass system. He was talking about two supergrasses named David Smith and George Williams. Many people thought at the time that measures had been taken to ensure that the kind of failings in the supergrass system that had been exposed would not be repeated. Sadly, they were repeated.
	Generally, when people talked about how supergrasses were treated, they meant in a policing context. However, the context is entirely separate when it comes to Customs and Excise. For example, only in recent days I have discovered by reading through Home Office material that I obtained under a freedom of information request, that powers analogous to the exercise of the royal prerogative are vested in Customs and Excise. I was completely unaware that Customs and Excise could mitigate sentences—I have mentioned it to a number of senior police officers, and they did not know exactly what those powers were, either. Not only would we not know how the royal prerogative was being exercised; we would not know how the powers of Customs and Excise were being exercised. Where those powers would be exercised today is anybody's guess—whether through the Serious Organised Crime Agency or the UK Border Agency, or in conjunction with the Revenue I just do not know—but the powers are there and they have been used.
	I am particularly alarmed that the handler in the Haase-Bennett case was a customs officer, not a police officer. It was shown in a previous case in the early '90s—it is known as the Charrington case, because it involved an informer called Brian Charrington—that there was a certain enthusiasm in customs for protecting informers. In that case, a notorious cocaine dealer called Curtis "Cocky" Warren—I believe that I taught him when he was a kid, but I cannot remember him, so he must have been a very unprepossessing boy—walked away. He told the then head of customs, who then told me, that he had just made £87 million, before adding in his own colourful language, "And there's nothing that you can—expletive—do to stop it." Despite that history of failure, the practice continued; it certainly did so in the Haase-Bennett case.
	The officer who was in charge of the original investigation is key to the systemic problems in respect not only of the lack of co-ordination among agencies, but of how the royal prerogative applies. The reason I say that is to do with how one gets the royal prerogative exercised, so I should explain that to the House. When I set out on this odyssey, I knew nothing about that, so I asked Members who were barristers, but they did not how it was done, either. I have learned since how one gets the royal prerogative exercised.
	What happens is that the officer in charge of the investigation submits a report to the trial judge—I believe that it used to be called a Greenfield report—and says, "Mr. Judge, these two men are contrite. In fact, he wrote that they wouldn't return to their life of crime." Anyone who knew anything about Haase and Bennett knew what a risible statement that was, but that was nevertheless part of that officer's entreaty to the judge, which also included claims about all the co-operation that they had given him. The judge then looks at the report and says, "My word, this is absolutely fantastic", before writing to the Home Secretary of the day. The Home Secretary then makes a decision based on the judge's letter.
	The Home Secretary does not have to say yes or no—the decision is entirely up to him, but it is presumably based on the merits of whatever the judge sends and can obviously vary from Home Secretary to Home Secretary. The Haase-Bennett case ended with a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. One of the mistakes commonly made in this place and beyond is to assume that all criminals are stupid, but I know that they are not. They may be vicious, nasty, immoral or even amoral, but one thing that they are not is stupid. Haase and Bennett knew how to find their way through the system. They knew how the process worked—I did not know; the barristers to whom I have referred did not know—because that is their business.
	Haase and Bennett also knew that they needed a pretext on which to go to the judge and say, "This is what we want—this is the quid pro quo." That was the point at which they became registered informants who were handled by a junior officer. I would argue that they manipulated that junior officer, who went unreprimanded when his senior officer pointed out that there were problems. In fact, it was not until 1998—two years after Haase and Bennett's release—that the senior officer in that case gave the junior officer an instruction not to have anything to do with those career criminals.
	I ask the House: what is any member of any agency doing mixing with such people? That officer has never been able to show whether Haase and Bennett were still registered informants when he saw them after their release. Indeed, it is quite the reverse: the evidence that he gave in 2001 in another trial of John Haase suggested that he was not an informant. There are huge problems of supervision, but let us return to the tale of the criminals and how they justified their cri de coeur to the judge—through their solicitor, of course.
	Haase and Bennett decided to become informants and provide information. They effectively gave three kinds of information. They gave information that allowed the police to intercept large numbers of guns, and when I say "large numbers", the biggest cache was 80 guns. We are talking about 150-plus weapons, including machine guns, pump-action shotguns, automatic weapons, Kalashnikovs, take Semtex and grenades—enough of an arsenal to wage a war. The irony was that there was no war, despite all the rumours and everything that was said. Instead, we are talking about a staged opportunity for the police to take all that weaponry off the streets, even though it had been placed in those locations precisely to be discovered and thereby to form a plank of Haase and Bennett's argument for being seen as bona fide informants who deserved remission.
	The second thing that Haase and Bennett did was reveal to prison staff a secreted gun in Strangeways prison. That gun was allegedly to be used by a man who was on trial for a double murder, for which he ultimately was convicted. I know nothing about the issue of that murder, but I know that it must be prejudicial to that man's trial if a gun secreted inside a prison is attributed to him and the allegation is made that he was going to take hostages in order to escape. At the very least, I would hope that somebody in authority—somebody in the Government—would ponder that and consider the case again, because that man has been in prison for 14 years already.
	Once, when I spoke to John Haase in a high-security prison, I mentioned the prisoner who had carried the can over the gun, Thomas Burke. John asked me, "Have you ever met him?", and I said that I had not. He asked, "Do you know him?", and I said that I did not. He said, "He's mad", and I asked "What makes you say that, John?" He replied, "When he shot those two blokes, he never wore a balaclava; everyone could see who he was." So, Haase thought that his madness was not in killing people, but in doing it openly and not hiding his face when committing that horrendous crime. Those are the kinds of people we are dealing with, but Haase's word was taken in that case.
	The third area in which Haase and Bennett operated was the traditional area of the supergrass—turning over all the underlings. Haase did that by the bucket load, and probably saved himself a lot of money, as those people are being taxed by other criminals now that they have gone down. That is how the underworld works. Nevertheless, the people in authority thought it was a great deal, and that Haase and Bennett had done the state a tremendous service by bringing those matters to the attention of the authorities. The fact that it was all a conspiracy that was designed specifically to get them out of jail seemed to pass by the authorities, although it did not pass by anyone in the underworld, or anyone with half a brain who looked at the facts. For example, all the gun caches were discovered without anyone ever being apprehended in association with them, and no one was ever near the scene of the crime. Individuals who could see the scam voiced their concerns, but Government agencies collectively and systemically failed. In so doing, they failed the people of this country and let the criminal justice system down.
	Many things have come to light, even since the conviction, that merit further investigation of the case. Back in 1996, the then Home Secretary wrote letters to Members of the House, on the advice of officials, about the original conviction. One letter expressed the view that Haase and Bennett had no part in the importation of drugs, but they did. Everybody knew that, including the authorities and me. In fact, there was a plea bargain, in which the importation charge was dropped. Haase and Bennett pleaded guilty to distribution, because they were already looking ahead at how easily they could manipulate the system. They knew that if they were charged with importation, as well as distribution, it would be much more difficult for them to convince the judge and the Home Secretary that their sentences ought to be commuted. Things were that well planned. Unfortunately, Members of this place were misled, and were told that Haase and Bennett were not involved in importation. Oh yes they were, and the officials knew they were. The fact that a deal was done is neither here nor there. It is quite different to say that they were not involved in importation.
	I realise that Haase and Bennett were practised liars, but it has really been struck home to me how badly the different agencies are co-ordinated when it comes to dealing with a sophisticated manipulation of the system. The original trial judge, David Lynch, was in the witness box in the recent court case. I spent three days in the witness box, but it must have been very embarrassing for Judge Lynch to have to appear in it. I was quite taken by one of his widely reported comments. He said that he would never have become involved with the recommendation if he had known how tainted it all was. He was told that Haase and Bennett were going to change their identities and go to South America, but if that had been so, I would not have been on the case 12 years ago. Perhaps, then, Operation Ainstable would never have taken place, and they would not now be incarcerated. The case would just have been another subversion of the criminal justice system.
	Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act 2000, even with all its limitations, because I have managed to obtain one piece of correspondence, after just about anything else of practical use had been deleted. R. J. Wood of the Home Office's criminal cases unit wrote, on 11 October 1996, in an advice note to the then Home Secretary:
	"We knew from the outset after all that Haase and Bennett intended going back to their Liverpool stamping ground".
	They knew from the outset. I find that amazing. They knew—as I said earlier, anybody with half a brain knew what Haase and Bennett would do. It is their business and trade; they never change. They were going back to their stamping ground. But who advised the judge? Was this not in the letter that went to the Home Secretary? Is there no full explanation or background briefing note on the exercise of the royal prerogative, or is it just two pals who drop a little billet-doux to each other, on the back of which two seasoned criminals are allowed back on the streets to prey on the people in my constituency and many others in the country? If there is no communication on these matters, that is appalling.
	I mentioned earlier that these decisions are taken by the Home Secretary of the day. I have just quoted Mr. Wood of the criminal cases unit. He was a very assiduous adviser—and for all I know he still is, to the present Home Secretary. Perhaps he is in a well-earned retirement. Referring to a 1993 case, he wrote to the then Home Secretary on 27 June 1996 to state:
	"The amount of remission to be recommended to the Palace is a matter for the Home Secretary. This position recognised that responsibility for recommendations to Her Majesty resides with the Home Secretary, not the judiciary."
	I would argue that that is wrong.
	If I had a choice, I would try to find a way for a panel of senior judges who are in some way fire-walled from the trial judge—that would not be impossible—to take any decision on the exercise of the royal prerogative. Is that not better than one individual—him or her sitting in splendid isolation—taking the decision after being given a half-accurate letter, perhaps guilty of sins of omission, from a judge? Is that a basis for the Home Secretary of the day to make a judgment? That cannot be right.
	It worries me that at some time in the future we will have a repeat of this, when others learn how to abuse the system. As I mentioned, it happened in the '70s and we thought that we had cleared it up; this is a case from the '90s and we think that we have cleaned it up. It is going to happen again unless there is better co-ordination between the agencies concerned.
	In this case, there must also be somebody somewhere who is able to look into the roles of some of the individuals involved. I am very concerned, and always have been, about the role of the customs officer who was the handler for the two informants. He played a most peculiar role in this sorry tale, and more detail is already on the record from the debates that we have had. I would certainly like somebody to look into why a prison officer—albeit a temporary one, allegedly—was able to take a gun into a prison. A report was done, but no one has ever seen it. It is kept in-house; it is another instance of the culture of secrecy that we have in government. A prison officer smuggled a gun into a prison and a report was carried out, yet it has never been published anywhere. There is something radically wrong there: it certainly does not help to create a greater degree of faith either in the criminal justice system or the prison system. We need to look into what went on.
	In short, I believe that we need a full, open and independent inquiry into this case, which strikes at the very heart of our criminal justice system. In fact, for quite a while, these people were successful at completely subverting the criminal justice system. On the face of it, the customs were duped, the police were duped, the Home Office was duped, the judge and the judiciary were duped. Everybody was duped by two career criminals. Yet to the best of my knowledge, no one in government has ever accepted any responsibility for this. It is as if it just happened as an act of God. It did not; it happened because the systems were not in place to deal with it.
	I hear whispers, but no formal announcements, that procedures have changed in the police forces, in Customs and Excise or whatever agency is involved now—the Border and Immigration Agency or the Serious Organised Crime Agency—and all over the place. I do not believe that. I fear that until someone has investigated what took place in what amounts to a scandal involving the subversion of our criminal justice system and has put that on the record, we shall merely pass time until we see a repeat of what happened.

Maria Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) not only on securing the debate but on the extensive and assiduous way in which he has pursued this matter for at least 12 years. Anyone who has stood where I stand now during that time must be well aware that my hon. Friend, who is known to be tenacious and inquiring in Liverpool, has repeatedly proved himself to be such in this place, on behalf of his constituents. He has, of course, raised this matter in the House before: in March 2001, when he produced a number of allegations along with information about the men involved—which he made public—and in an Adjournment debate in May 2004. Now, at the end of the most recent court case involving Haase and Bennett, he is here again.
	I can only congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacity in pursuing his concerns, but he can take some satisfaction, and indeed has done so, from the convictions of the two men at Southwark Crown court last week for perverting the course of justice. I think that the prison sentences of 22 and 20 years imposed on them constitute recognition of not only the seriousness with which he has done his work, but the seriousness with which the criminal justice system treats what has happened. It is clearly a good thing that these two men are back behind bars where, as my hon. Friend said, they so clearly belong.
	I know my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment too much, or go into too much detail, about decisions made by an earlier Administration. However, it is public knowledge that the initial impetus for the reduction in sentence in these cases came, entirely and properly, from the trial judge, and that in supplying information to the judge, Customs and Excise was properly fulfilling its obligations to the court. My hon. Friend made a number of observations about the way in which that operated in this case, which I intend to take away and look at rather more closely. I hope that he will forgive me for not dealing with them in more detail this evening.
	My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the events that he described could not be repeated, while making clear his belief that, as things stand, they probably could. I want to say something about these matters—to the extent that I can—and particularly about the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy and the way in which it is currently used, given the detailed concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed about it. I also want to say something about the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. My hon. Friend will be aware of some of it, but I also want to respond to a few of his more general points.
	By constitutional convention, the Secretary of State for Justice in England and Wales is now responsible for recommending to the sovereign the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy; at the time to which my hon. Friend refers, it was the Home Secretary. Three forms of the royal prerogative of mercy are used to grant pardons to convicted criminals. I do not want to discuss the conditional pardon, which is used to commute death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment, because—for somewhat obvious reasons—it is not currently in use. The two main forms of pardon that are still available are free pardons and remission pardons.
	The form of pardon most commonly understood is the free pardon; in this context it means that the pardon is free from any conditions, rather than "free" in the more common usage of the word. Free pardons are rarely granted; the last was in 1996. The Criminal Cases Review Commission now investigates alleged miscarriages of justice and, where it concludes that there is a real possibility that a conviction is not safe, can refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal, the route most commonly used for dealing with these matters.
	A decision by the Secretary of State for Justice to recommend the use of the royal prerogative of mercy to grant a free pardon is restricted to cases where it is impractical for the case to be referred to an appellate court and, secondly, where new evidence has arisen that has not been before the courts, demonstrating beyond any doubt either that no offence was committed or that the defendant did not commit the crime. The applicant must be technically and morally innocent. These criteria have proper regard to the constitutional position that the courts decide whether a person is guilty of an offence, not the Government.
	The other form of pardon is the remission pardon, the means by which Haase and Bennett were released early from their sentences in 1996. This type of pardon provides for the release of a prisoner from having to serve some or all of the remainder of their sentence. It also provides for someone who has been subject to a monetary penalty to be released from the obligation to pay all or part of it. Remission pardons are usually considered in cases where the applicant has provided assistance to the prosecuting authorities—the police, HMRC, the Crown Prosecution Service—or to the Prison Service, or in recognition of meritorious conduct; for example, saving the life of a fellow prisoner or member of prison staff. It can also be considered for a breach of public faith where a release date has been incorrectly calculated. For brevity, I will concentrate my remarks on the use of the remission pardon in cases where there has been help to the police or prosecuting authorities, which, until the discovery of the perversion of the course of justice to which my hon. Friend referred, was the reason for the original decision in this case.
	Remission pardons for help to the police and prosecuting authorities have continued to be granted since the Haase and Bennett case, and five have been granted—my hon. Friend referred to this—since 1997. None has been granted since 2002. No remission pardon has been considered since 2004, when two were refused. These figures contrast with those quoted by my hon. Friend for the years between 1992 and 1996, when I think he said that there had been 192 cases. I hope that the much smaller number of cases now offers some reassurance that such pardons are indeed used sparingly. They are by no means automatic and are granted only after rigorous consideration and in the light of compelling evidence.
	The tailing off in the use of remission pardons is most probably due to the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. The Act introduced a framework of written notices and agreements to deal with offenders who offer assistance to law enforcement. These range from immunity through to reviews of sentence for assistance provided following conviction and sentence. The provisions for reductions in sentences upon conviction in the Crown court for assistance given or promised prior to sentence are restricted to those who enter a guilty plea.
	Once sentence has been passed, the Act also allows for that sentence to be referred back to the sentencing judge for review if assistance or further assistance is subsequently given. This provision is not limited to those who have pleaded guilty. In both instances, any reduction in the sentence given in recognition of assistance supplied or promised can be referred back to court by the prosecutor and reduced by the court if the assistance is not forthcoming in accordance with the agreement.
	These are important provisions and mean that an initial decision is taken by the prosecutor whether to enter into a written agreement that may affect the sentence, and any reductions will, in the vast majority of cases, be at the discretion of the court and not granted by politicians. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance on some of the points he made about the difficulties that the secrecy inherent in the situation have brought, with the decision being taken by a politician acting on advice and somewhat removed, necessarily, from the circumstances. Things are done somewhat differently now.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) informed the House in an Adjournment debate in 2004, a review of the use of the remission pardon by the then Home Secretary at that time concluded that the royal prerogative of mercy should not normally be used to shorten sentences in recognition of information supplied to the authorities and known to the trial judge at the time of sentence, which is what occurred in the Haase and Bennett case. The provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act would now almost certainly cover the Haase and Bennett circumstances. One would hope the outcome might be somewhat different, but one could, of course, always envisage the contrary being the case; these people are not stupid, and there are always those who are willing to try to subvert our justice system.
	It would not be appropriate to say that a remission pardon should never be used in such circumstances, because there may be rare cases where it is important for the Justice Secretary to retain such discretion, but one would hope that that would be much rarer than in the past. May I reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton that the Justice Secretary would consider a remission pardon to be appropriate only in the most exceptional case where there was no other way of dealing with the matter, and even then it would need to be absolutely clear that the person concerned had provided information that was of real value to the authorities?
	My hon. Friend also raised concerns about the role of the customs officers in this case. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has a proven track record as a successful law enforcement agency and it prevents many harmful and illegal items, such as class A drugs, from being smuggled through UK frontiers. This case was in the mid-1990s and I understand that practices have changed considerably since that time. I shall now set those changes out, while understanding that my hon. Friend is perhaps a little more cynical, with his past 12 years of experience, than some might be.
	The Butterfield review of criminal investigations and prosecutions conducted by customs was published in July 2003. The report recommended revised arrangements for handling intelligence sources. These new arrangements were put in place in September 2003 and extensive law enforcement training commenced in April 2004. This training focused on improving the systems and control for the classification and handling of human source intelligence. In addition, significant enhancements in the assurance procedures for all criminal investigations have been introduced. All criminal investigation officers now receive regular upskilling and refresher training. In HMRC the following is now the case: no investigating officer is allowed to handle informants directly connected to his case—which happened in Haase and Bennett; specially trained officers handle all informants; HMRC has a group dedicated to professionalism and standards in criminal justice and enforcement; and HMRC is subject to oversight from outside in how it handles such matters.
	My hon. Friend has made it clear that he considers this to be one of the worst possible cases of corruption in the criminal justice system, and it is certainly a very serious one. There is no doubt that Haase and Bennett managed to corrupt the criminal justice system, but in the end justice caught up with them.
	My hon. Friend has made a number of specific requests that I wish to take away and consider further, and then come back to him. His call for an independent public inquiry would ensure that the lessons that he perceives to be essential following his long association with this matter can be properly learned. I will consider what he has said on this, but I am not committing the Government.
	Two sorts of inquiry are open to us. The first is an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry is usually set up where concern has been caused by particular events or where there is public concern that particular events may have occurred. A number of inquiries have been set up using that legislation, including, most recently, one chaired by Sir William Gage to investigate the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him. Inquiries set up under the 2005 Act have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. However, it is of course the case that inquiries do not determine civil or criminal liability.
	The second possibility is a non-statutory inquiry, because not every inquiry set up by the Government needs to have statutory powers to compel evidence. Witnesses are often willing to co-operate with the inquiry panel, so the formal mechanisms of the 2005 Act are not always necessary. My hon. Friend may have his views about what kind of inquiry he would seek, and I would be willing to discuss the matter with him further outside the Chamber.
	Finally, I wish to tell my hon. Friend again how much hon. Members appreciate the assiduity with which he has pursued this matter, which is of public concern, not only in his constituency and in Liverpool, but more widely. He must feel that his efforts have been vindicated, and he should certainly be pleased that justice has, at last, been done, in part thanks to the work that he put in. The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the mid 1990s, and as I hope I have been able to show, the safeguards have been strengthened. One hopes that will enable us to prevent this kind of thing from happening as frequently as his remarks showed he fears it might.
	I think that the chances of a case such as this happening again are remote, but there is no doubt that there is always a chance that it will. My hon. Friend rightly says that we should remain vigilant and that we should do all we can to minimise the possibility that such a catastrophic subversion of our entire criminal justice system as he has set out, and as Haase and Bennett were clearly able to perpetrate, could take place. The whole House will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts. It is at least something that Haase and Bennett have now got their just deserts in the recent prison sentences handed down to them, which they are now serving.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Nine o'clock .